So who has seen Batman?


PDA






Malice
June 19, 2005, 07:40 PM
Who has seen this movie? I took my dad to see it today and I thought it was overall a great movie.

I think on the surface it had some anti-gun elements, like the Batman-doesnt-use -guns thing, and him throwing that gun into the river during the flashback.

But deep down it had lots of elemtnts that made a lot of sense. For example, when the guy who trains batman claims that Thomas Wayne caused his own death by submitting to the criminals instead of taking action and standing up for himself. The part about how good people need to do somthing about things. The carefull distinctions made between vigalanteeism and justice. And also the idea that people involved need to take action, instead of a handfull of elites "doing what is necessary" to fix things; which really destroy the people they are trying to help.

Good flick, heavy self-defense, RKBA-related and individualist undertones.

If you enjoyed reading about "So who has seen Batman?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Beethoven
June 19, 2005, 07:58 PM
This movie really made a big impact on me. I already saw it twice, would like to see it again, and will be among the first to own it when it comes out on DVD.

I have been thinking a lot about it and am still a bit fuzzy about the distinction between vigilantism and justice.

Most likely, hollywood decided that they couldn't produce a movie that was blatantly anti-criminal, so they had to throw in that part to confuse us.

Batman goes around and kicks criminals' butts. Frankly, I think he does both himself and the rest of us a disservice by not rubbing them out completely, if you know what I mean.

He does himself and the public he's trying to help a disservice by leaving the criminals alive to come get him or us again later, as happened to him in the movie.

As his mentor Liam Neeson said, "there are many in the world without decency who must be put down without hesitation and without remorse," or something to that effect.

I agree completely with that sentiment.

Overall, it was a fantastic movie on many levels.

The story was awesome, the special effects were amazing, and the messages were true jems.

I wonder what hollywood was thinking to make a movie like this??? :scrutiny:

Drizzt
June 19, 2005, 09:02 PM
I wouldn't read too much into the 'anti-gun' elements of the movie. Going back to the original character, Batman always refused to use a gun, as that was how his parents died, so this doesn't have any reflection on whether the writers and actors had any positive or negative views on firearms.

Also, remember his line to Neeson at the end. I'm not going to kill you, but that doesn't mean I'm going to save you either....

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 09:16 PM
I said it before and I'll say it again. Batman IS a vigilante. Anyone who seeks justice outside of the official channels is a vigilante. But they dont want us to ask the question: "Is Batman evil, or is vigilantism actually necessary in some situations?" The movie seems to suggest that when the police will not do their jobs, citizens will have to step in.

I was annoyed at rich people taking public transportation and not carrying despite the fact that they live in bad neighborhoods. Then again, that would make it exactly like NYC, Boston or most other major american cities.

I personally found batman's unwillingness to kill or use guns to be unconvincing. His training was that of an assassin, his motivation for the first half of the movie was revenge and all of his hardware is military. Why did he suddenly flip a switch and decide that he was going to be mister rogers? Weaksauce.

Also, the only reason that batman uses such fancy hardware and elaborate combat techniques is because they dont want anyone in the audience to realize how effective a single man with a gun can be. You dont need batarangs to pick off crackheads in your neighborhood with a suppressed carbine. New Jersey would have less crime than Disneyworld if people had a more proactive attitude towards taking their neighborhoods back.

wally
June 19, 2005, 09:17 PM
Just got back from it. My wife and I thought it was a butt buster and were singing the Bart Simpson song as we left: "Jingle Bells, Batman Smells...."

I thought the special effects were self-indulgent and detracted from what story there was.

--wally.

SHOOT1SAM
June 19, 2005, 09:28 PM
Drizzt wrote:

I wouldn't read too much into the 'anti-gun' elements of the movie. Going back to the original character, Batman always refused to use a gun, as that was how his parents died.......

This is not correct. In the early Batman comic books, I'm talking about back around 1939 when he first appeared, he did indeed use guns, and he did kill many criminals (much like Doc Savage, a pre-comic book pulp hero). I can remember one reprint of a very early Batman story where he was mowing them down with a Tommygun.

It was early in the careers of both aforementioned fictional heroes that they made the conscious decision to avoid taking human life it at all possible.

Sam

TheFederalistWeasel
June 19, 2005, 09:32 PM
If Katie Holmes ain't getting naked I ain't wasting the money!

:neener:

Brett Bellmore
June 19, 2005, 09:50 PM
My favorite was the Avenger, though; He never killed anybody, as I recall, but he was quite fond of arranging circumstances so that if the villians tried to kill him, they offed themselves. Like rigging a bomb's remote detonator to explode.

He was a crack shot, skilled at the art of knocking people out by a glancing shot to the skull. :what:

Cesiumsponge
June 19, 2005, 09:52 PM
I saw the movie opening night and I had a very good feeling it would be done right. I won't give away any spoilers.

I was blown away by Christian Bale's (purposely) emotionless performance in the relatively unknown Equilibrium and I was darn excited when I heard he would be playing Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. Cillian Murphy (28 Days Later) plays a creepy psychiatrist Dr Crane at Arcam. It ended up being somewhere around two hours and change so it's not the typical action-packed can't-turn-your-head-for-a-second movie. The first half of the movie is fairly slow, to warn those action fans. It goes into developing the whole Batman mantra and goes into his past. The second half follows the full segway into the dark superhero.

I'm glad it wasn't an abortion of a movie like the Schumacher directed Batman & Robin and Batman Forever where he runs around with molded rubber nipples around painfully bright neon movie sets. Remaking a series of movies that have been dormant for some time tends to end...not well. I'm not a Star Wars fan so I won't comment on that. I was fully dissapointed when AvP came out, blending the R-rated Alien and Predator franchise into a PG-13 movie. I was also dissapointed when they touched the Terminator series and decided to add a fourth movie to that as well.

However in Batman Begins, I wasn't dissapointed at all. There wasn't anti-bullet sprays or anything truly farfetched. The city wasn't neon bright and the city was painted as believable. The gizmos and gadgets were based around nerfed R&D gadgets in the movie. The movie returns to a cinematically dark and gritty feeling without adding overly cartoony elements of an animated comic. The movie very much took on the gritty, faded, dull, dismal feeling similar to the feeling of Bladerunner. There were nuances of the film that show the increasing degredation and apathy of Gotham (a major theme in the movie) from the time of Bruce's youth to the present day represented in the movie (ie the train shown as brand new in his past, then becomes grafitti-laden in later shots)

Now for cons: I felt the superweapon the movie was based around to be a bit unrealistic, but some degree of belief-suspension is usually required for movies; it certainly wasn't as unbelievable as The Core or Day After Tomorrow. The movie wasn't dependant on CGI and only used it as a supplement, which I think is a good thing. However, the new trend for movie fight scenes is macro shots and quick cuts; this movie follows that template and I don't like nauseating fight scenes in general.

All in all, I'd recommend it. The movie has already grossed 71 million dollars, not bad :D

beerslurpy
June 19, 2005, 09:57 PM
It would be possible to vaporize a city's water supply with radiation, but in doing so you would superheat the enormous amount of air between yourself and the water, generating a blast wave that would flatten the city and much of the surrounding countryside.

Ironically, there has been no evidence that even the most powerful of atomic bombs had any effect on water below the surface of the ground. It would have to be one hell of a burst of radiation.

Cesiumsponge
June 19, 2005, 10:17 PM
Since the cat is out of the bag, I minus well chime in, but don't read on if you don't want to see the spoilers discussed.




















Electromagnetic radiation in the microwave wavelength and nuclear radiation are two different beasts. The movie specifically mentions that the device stolen was a microwave-based weapon. Standard microwave ovens operate on the wavelength of 2.43ghz which seems to be the most efficient wavelength for causing vibratory friction in polar water molecules and organic fat molecules (hence it's choice in nuking your food :neener: ).

Of course, anything that can vaporize an entire city's water supply, and in the process cover the streets with superheated steam which would cook anyone in it's presense, will also easily turn people into red clouds of mist since they primarily consist of water. It would also explode all water pipes since they are rated for liquid pressure and not superheated steam which would both corrode the pipes and cause them to explode like overpressured boilers.

Though, I mention that in most movies, which are works of fiction, you have to suspend your disbelief to some degree. It was an enjoyable film, despite some inaccuracies. Gun guys nitpick Hollywood gun errors, science guys nitpick Hollywood science errors. It's all in good fun in the end :)

PershingRiflesC-7
June 19, 2005, 11:27 PM
Saw the noon show today as my Father's Day outing and totally enjoyed myself. Left me wondering how soon they can do the sequel that was set up so well at the end. Basically good writing, acting, direction, special effects = entertainment.

As to FederalistWeasel's concern about Katie Holmes, there is a scene at the end with her in sweater with a fine showing of perky nipples -- that will have to do. :D :D :D

Kamicosmos
June 19, 2005, 11:41 PM
Very Good Movie. Renewed my interest in The Bat.

I liked the strong Do Something vibe. Katie using her taser several times, and not being the typical Screaming and Running Hot Chic Co-Star was a nice change.

I also thought the superweapon was a bit funky, but whatever.

My jury is still out on the BatMonsterTruckMobile. It was kinda neat, but the .... uh. roof jumping was pushing it.

I too, can't wait for the sequel. Really curious to see how they will portray the selected villian they hinted at. Well, not really hinted. ;)

Oh, and I remember reading in one of the comics Batman was explaining why he didn't use guns. he was afraid he'd loose it and start wacking people. So it's a self control thing to maintain his sense of justice over being judge/jury/executioner.

JohnKSa
June 20, 2005, 01:07 AM
will also easily turn people into red clouds of mist since they primarily consist of water.Yup, had to grit my teeth a little over that one...

rwc
June 20, 2005, 01:38 AM
but the .... uh. roof jumping was pushing it.

I couldn't help picturing a Gotham Insurance Co. executive adding "damage from Batmobile or any action of Batman" to all policy exclusions...

walking arsenal
June 20, 2005, 02:32 AM
I saw him just last night, we grabbed a beer at Grandmas. :D

Boss Spearman
June 20, 2005, 05:14 AM
Ironic, because in the original Batman comic when it debutted in the late 30s or early 40s, Batman carried a Colt 1911.

Gabe
June 20, 2005, 05:40 AM
I couldn't help picturing a Gotham Insurance Co. executive adding "damage from Batmobile or any action of Batman" to all policy exclusions...

Bruce Wayne probably owns the insurance companies.

Brett Bellmore
June 20, 2005, 10:09 AM
Marvel comics actually had a series based on a premise like that; The insurance company, "Damage Control", that sold policies covering superhero fight damage to property.

buzz_knox
June 20, 2005, 10:12 AM
Going back to the original character, Batman always refused to use a gun, as that was how his parents died, so this doesn't have any reflection on whether the writers and actors had any positive or negative views on firearms.

As stated above, the original Batman carried and used weapons, including a pair of 1911s. It was in the '60s that he stopped carrying firearms. This changed in the first Michael Keaton movie, when his batplane came equipped with miniguns and rockets.

Risasi
June 20, 2005, 11:40 AM
Sorry. I like the first Michael Keaton version better.

Though this new one had the potential to be better they screwed it up big time.

1. Not dark enough. Say Bale's Batman had killed Neeson in a fit of rage, at the end of this new one. Or even better he took the life of the murderer at the temple, then became remorseful and burned the temple. Or totally freaked out some other way red curtain of blood style. Then it would be understandable why he doesn't kill, especially with guns. This guy is supposed to have demons. Instead he's some pansy earth boy trying to reach total consiousness on top of a mountain. Gunga-galunga. Sorry still too kiddie comic book for me. If he shot first like Han, or had that vicious edge Eastwood had in the first Sergio Leon movies this would have been better.


2. There is no continuity with the first movies. Which is fine if you are redoing them. But if you aren't what the crap is with cooler, better bat armor, belt and gadgets earlier in your career of vigilantism?

3. The batmobile sucks. It rolls more than a kayak on the Atlantic. Where's the handling?

While this movie doesn't have as many holes as a Lucasfilm I wasn't impressed. Still I would put this in as a close second to the first Michael Keaton Batman movie. Personally I think they should have set the movie back into the 30's or 40's. AND kept the current set of gadgets they had in this movie. Oh well. It's just a movie I guess.

Captal_de_Buch
June 20, 2005, 12:17 PM
Question:

Before I blow my pension check on taking my wife out to see Batman..

I took the wife out to see Star Wars III earlier this month.. because everyone said it "Rocked".. At best I thought it was kind of ok.. I couldn't really get into it.. and I couldn't see what all the fuss was about...

Would you say Batman is for "Kids"? Would an old, retired man and women get into it??????

We don't have a lot of money to blow but we get bored sitting at home hurling insults at the homos on TV.

SHOOT1SAM
June 20, 2005, 02:55 PM
I haven't seen this latest Batman yet (got 2 tickets for it for Father's Day!), but from what I've read, its more along the lines of the 1st Batman movie with Michael Keaton.

The best description I ever heard of the later Batman films was "They turned a movie about a comic book character into a cartoon."

Sam

Sean Smith
June 20, 2005, 04:52 PM
The movie isn't anti-gun, not in any sense that matters.

Batman threw the gun in the river because he almost used it to murder somebody in the previous scene, not becuase of some anti-gun ideology.

Giving him a gun later would basically violate the last 40 years of Batman comic and cartoon history. Batman hasn't carried guns for the last couple of GENERATIONS, folks.

The DA lady defends herself with a taser a couple times, and later with a gun she picks up off a cop when the crazies come after her and the kid. There is nothing in the scene to make you think she won't (or shouldn't) use it either. Self-defense in various forms is shown as something that is unexceptional and necessary. Indeed, Ra's Al Ghul argues that Bruce Wayne's dad was ultimately to blame for them getting waxed, since he couldn't be bothered to defend himself. Hardly a sheeple sentiment.

Gordon complains about the arms race with bad guys at the end, but we're talking about a comic book reality where the criminals almost wiped out the entire city with a doomsday weapon! That's the closest thing to an anti-gun sentiment in the whole movie.

The Batmobile has two huge-assed guns, incidentally.

And consider this: Gotham is basically a dystopian New York City. Why would a worse-than-reality New York have BETTER gun laws than we do now, and be full of responsible CHL holders? :confused:

The Batman world has to be such that things are bad enough and hopeless enough that Batman has something to do. With 10,000 CHL holders in Gotham, the Joker would get shot and killed before he got out of training wheels. Then again, that might be fun to watch, too. :D

The big, bad corpration is... mostly good. Dad is a hero because he VOLUNTARILY used his money for charity; he didn't, for instance, lobby the government to raise taxes and spend lots of cash on dumb-assed welfare programs. Their Defense R&D is shown to be almost entirely benign; all the products are described in terms of saving soldiers' lives. The "evil" device is from a R&D program that they voluntarily shut down & was stolen from them. There is one bad guy in the company, and he gets booted out of the company through legal, capitalistic means. The government, on the other hand, is almost totally corrupt; I think we see exactly 2 good people in it.

isa268
June 20, 2005, 05:43 PM
yea the movie was great.

it was the first place i went after getting my TX CHL. it was kinda wierd sitting in the theater with a .45 on my hip.

matt

Third_Rail
June 20, 2005, 05:45 PM
I remember watching some Batman cartoons when I was a little kid.... he sure used guns then!!


I saw one where he was shooting at the Joker with a Thompson. Another at the Penguin with what looked like some side-fed SMG (Sten?)

ObeOne
June 20, 2005, 09:37 PM
I will admit I Follow Batman A lot.
I though they did an excellent job with the movie. WAY better than any of the others or the horrid 60's TV show.
They have dealt with the gun issue in the comics as well. He basically admits that he does have a slight irrational feeling towards guns because of his parentsí murder.
Additionally, in an offshoot from batman, they explained why they don't kill. It went something like, "...We are outside the law, not OUTLAWs..."
Basically, if they cross that line, they are not any better than who they are killing, since they are going out their ect.
I am also happy that they finally got Gordan right, too, as a good bad a$$ cop, not a bumbling buffoon.
Obe One

If you enjoyed reading about "So who has seen Batman?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!