# Batman Begins: Ra's al Ghul (Major Spoilers)



## Taelorn76 (Jun 19, 2005)

This is a finally warning do read on if you have not seen the movie!!!!












My cousin and I saw Batman last night, and we had a little debate.
After watching the movie I commented on how I liked that Liam Neeson was the real Ra's and that Ken Watanabe's character was actualy a decoy. I used the scene at Bruce's Birthday party, when Bruce confronts Liam, and says something to the effect of 
Bruce-"I see I am not the only one who mastered the ability to hide my true identity"
Another was by Ra's- " You burned my house I now return the favor"
(very loosly quoted)

My cousin on the other hand is of the mind the Liam's Ra's stepped up to replace Ken's Ra's when he died. That that way Ra's becomes an imortal figure. As one dies someone from the League of Shadows replaces him and asumes his identity.

I was wondering how others here saw that


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 19, 2005)

Nah Neeson was Ra the entire time.  Analyzing the conversation they had at the mansionl, Batman says something to the effect of  "it was you all the time" and Neeson agrees.  Plus looking at the comic book interpretation of Ra, the way RA acts in the movie is identical to the way Neeson acted the entire time.  There's also the scenes in China when batman is training and Neeson emphasises how someone can hide in shadows and be a deadly enemy.. this is all foreshadow. 

 I kept watching hte movie and grimacing as I thought at first that Ra Ghul was horribly miscast. But, the twist was pleasant and made a lot of sense.


----------



## Jarrod (Jun 19, 2005)

Unless Ra's was the actual Ra's, and now Batman only _thinks_ that Ducard was Ra's....



I thought it was amusing that while Wayne burned down Ra's' house, carried Ducard out, and made sure he would be cared for, Ducard just burned down the house. On the other hand, my wife did note that Wayne did leave Ra's for dead


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jun 19, 2005)

Jarrod said:
			
		

> Unless Ra's was the actual Ra's, and now Batman only _thinks_ that Ducard was Ra's....
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was amusing that while Wayne burned down Ra's' house, carried Ducard out, and made sure he would be cared for, Ducard just burned down the house. On the other hand, my wife did note that Wayne did leave Ra's for dead





Well, Bruce checked on Ra's before leaving and it appeared that he was already dead.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 19, 2005)

I think Liam Neeson was Ra's the whole time. At first I wondered if it was a hereditary title and he was only metaphorically immortal, but after the line about sending ships loaded with plague rats into London, I decided he was there to see it.

What impressed me was that that movie didn't give it away during the ads. MANY movies give away key plot points in the trailers.

Chuck


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Jun 19, 2005)

Liam being Ra's all the time is a neat twist - I thought he just took over from Watanabee, but it does make a lot of sense that he was the guy all along.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 19, 2005)

IIRC the original (comic) Ra's Al Ghul was also a close friend and mentor to Batman, and Batman was shocked to learn who his enemy was. Ever since Liam Neeson was announced as Henry Ducard, I had hoped he'd be Ra's.

I have no doubt Watanabe was but a decoy; it's Ducard, after all, who does most of the speaking in the LOS.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 19, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> IIRC the original (comic) Ra's Al Ghul was also a close friend and mentor to Batman, and Batman was shocked to learn who his enemy was. Ever since Liam Neeson was announced as Henry Ducard, I had hoped he'd be Ra's.
> 
> I have no doubt Watanabe was but a decoy; it's Ducard, after all, who does most of the speaking in the LOS.



The cool thing is that he's listed as Ducard in all the credits and on IMDB.  It was a great twist and honestly leaves thing's open for a sequal.  They introduced the Ra  character without mentioning anything of the Lazereith pits or any lf Ra's super natural abilities.


----------



## Darthjaye (Jun 19, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> IIRC the original (comic) Ra's Al Ghul was also a close friend and mentor to Batman, and Batman was shocked to learn who his enemy was. Ever since Liam Neeson was announced as Henry Ducard, I had hoped he'd be Ra's.
> 
> I have no doubt Watanabe was but a decoy; it's Ducard, after all, who does most of the speaking in the LOS.





Actually somewhere in an interview with Nolan, he hinted (or it slipped) that Neeson was Ras.  Before I had seen the first trailer I had known which character Neeson was playing.  Watanabe was a decoy.  Even in the credits (which they had to list him as Ras because they gave no other name for him).  I do like the fact that by saving Ras, Bruce caused the problem at the end in Gotham.  Had he let him die, none of that would have come to pass.  More importantly, because of Scarecrow's meddling and screwing with the minds of all the criminals that he had admitted to Arkham, and Ras backing of Scarecrow, he helped create Batman's future problems with his "rogue's gallery".  Screwing with all those criminals was a nice setup for this.  The Joker bit was a nice touch at the end too.  

So, in conclusion, by trying to rid the city of it's corruption, Ras went and made things infinitely worse.   Ahhh....irony.

P.S. I also like the fact that they slipped several other future characters from the Bat-verse in there.  Barbara Gordon was listed in the credits and she was only on screen long enough to be handed off to mommy before Gordon steps outside to end up talkling to Batman.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 19, 2005)

Cool, I am glad I was not the only one who thought Liam was Ra's the whole time.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 19, 2005)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> P.S. I also like the fact that they slipped several other future characters from the Bat-verse in there.  Barbara Gordon was listed in the credits and she was only on screen long enough to be handed off to mommy before Gordon steps outside to end up talkling to Batman.



I liked that as well (although, confusingly, in comics the Barbara who's his daughter is not the Barbara Gordon who becomes Batgirl -- it's very clunky, and apparently due to some editorial mandates about having Jim be a bachelor at that moment, for some unknown reason). I got giddy when Jim's partner was Flaas and when Szasz came out of his cell, his body visibly covered in marks for all the people he'd killed.


----------



## jonesy (Jun 20, 2005)

Berandor said:
			
		

> IIRC the original (comic) Ra's Al Ghul was also a close friend and mentor to Batman, and Batman was shocked to learn who his enemy was.



Ra’s al Ghul first showed up in Batman#232, where he straight up tells Batman that he knows he is Bruce Wayne. He then lures Batman onto a mission to rescue his daughter, which is a ruse to find out how capable Batman really is (and to get him to marry Talia). And then Ra’s al Ghul reveals his mission in life.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 20, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I got giddy when Jim's partner was Flaas and when Szasz came out of his cell, his body visibly covered in marks for all the people he'd killed.




I didn't catch those references - who are those names?  Guess I don't keep up with the Batman lore much... do they have other "villian names" that I might recognize?

Edit: But, back on topic - yeah, I also believe that Liam was Ra's all along.


----------



## Bront (Jun 20, 2005)

I had a feeling that Liam was Ra's when I read that Ra's was in the movie cast as someone else.  And I haven't even seen the movie yet.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 20, 2005)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> I do like the fact that by saving Ras, Bruce caused the problem at the end in Gotham.  Had he let him die, none of that would have come to pass.




Ra's mentions that they'd been working on Gotham since the time of Bruce's father.  The Shadows were going to come for the city in one way or another.  Helping Ra's to live only fails to delay the inevitable conflict, rather than cause it.

Remember - it is the bad men who _cause_ bad things.  Bruce didn't cause his father's death.  Nor did Bruce cause Ra's to attack Gotham.  Failing to stop what you don't know will happen does nto constitute causing that thing to happen.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I liked that as well (although, confusingly, in comics the Barbara who's his daughter is not the Barbara Gordon who becomes Batgirl -- it's very clunky, and apparently due to some editorial mandates about having Jim be a bachelor at that moment, for some unknown reason). I got giddy when Jim's partner was Flaas and when Szasz came out of his cell, his body visibly covered in marks for all the people he'd killed.



It was a big mark out moment when I saw the scores on Szasz and immediately turned to my girlfriend whom, also a geek, told me to shut up she knows.


----------



## ddvmor (Jun 20, 2005)

The twist came as a complete blinder to me, knowing the two characters from the comics.  I never expected it all.

Would have been nice to see Zsasz being used a bit more than just as scenery.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

ddvmor said:
			
		

> The twist came as a complete blinder to me, knowing the two characters from the comics.  I never expected it all.
> 
> Would have been nice to see Zsasz being used a bit more than just as scenery.



I think Zsasz was there to make us fanboys go crazy.  HOnestly I don't think they can properly do a pg-13 Zsasz, at least not on screen.  Any attempt would water down the character or make him R rated.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 20, 2005)

But Bale wants the sequel to be R.


----------



## RangerWickett (Jun 20, 2005)

Who's Szasz?


----------



## Insight (Jun 20, 2005)

As long as we've got the spoiler thing going, anyone else think that kid Batman saved (the one Rachel was huddling over during the fear sequence, etc, and the one to which Batman gave that device earlier) is going to turn out to be Robin?  After all, he did say he "couldn't find his mommy".  What if mommy and daddy are dead, and Bruce Wayne takes the child in as his "ward"?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 20, 2005)

They played it ambigious, so it could go either way, but I suspect Ducard was always the Ghul. That said, I think Watanabe is a great actor and I wanted to see more of him in the flick. Maybe there will be cut scenes on the DVD. In this presenation, there does not seem to be much chance for Watanabe to come back, or for a Talia character.

That said, I thought it was a nice touch where Gordon gives the joker card to Batman - almost a direct lift from "Year One."


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jun 20, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Who's Szasz?




A serial killer villian introduced in the 1990s. He kills people, then carves a hatch mark into his own skin afterwards. Its almost rare for Batman to have a villian so straigth forwards.


----------



## Henry (Jun 20, 2005)

Here's a good bio on Zsasz:

http://www.legionsofgotham.org/BIOSzsasz.html

And here is info on the Batman: Year One 4-issue series with info on Gordon's partner Flass:

http://www.darkknight.ca/storylines/yearone.html


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 20, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> As long as we've got the spoiler thing going, anyone else think that kid Batman saved (the one Rachel was huddling over during the fear sequence, etc, and the one to which Batman gave that device earlier) is going to turn out to be Robin? After all, he did say he "couldn't find his mommy". What if mommy and daddy are dead, and Bruce Wayne takes the child in as his "ward"?





My girlfriend said the same exact thing and she is not familiar with Batman. Heck she had never even heard of Batgirl when we were discussing Barbara Gordon being in the credits.


----------



## Tonguez (Jun 20, 2005)

um you do realise that putting RAS AL GHUL in the title is a SPOILER!!!


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 20, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> um you do realise that putting RAS AL GHUL in the title is a SPOILER!!!




I don't believe it is. 
Ra's has been known to be one of the villans in Batman Begins from the begining. The spoiler is which actor actualy played Ra's


----------



## fba827 (Jun 20, 2005)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is.
> Ra's has been known to be one of the villans in Batman Begins from the begining. The spoiler is which actor actualy played Ra's




I don't believe it is either, the commericals even have him in it so it isn't as though he's a secret character. plus, as you said, they show ra's pretty much at the beggining of the movie.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 20, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> As long as we've got the spoiler thing going, anyone else think that kid Batman saved (the one Rachel was huddling over during the fear sequence, etc, and the one to which Batman gave that device earlier) is going to turn out to be Robin?  After all, he did say he "couldn't find his mommy".  What if mommy and daddy are dead, and Bruce Wayne takes the child in as his "ward"?




God, I hope not.

This series, and this version of Batman, should stay as far away from the very _concept_ of Robin as is physically possible. The idea of a kid sidekick was barely acceptable in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It's absolutely anathema to Batman now, particularly this incarnation of him.

In fact, if I were one of the writers, I would include a scene in the second movie set at a circus. In this scene, an entire family of acrobats--_including the pre-teen/teen son--would be killed. I would include this scene purely as a way of telling everyone "Not gonna happen. Not making that mistake again."

I just cannot see any way in which the presence of Robin wouldn't detract from this version of the Batman mythos, or this portrayal of the character, and I would have to seriously consider if I was even willing to go see a Batman movie that introduced the character._


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> God, I hope not.
> 
> This series, and this version of Batman, should stay as far away from the very _concept_ of Robin as is physically possible. The idea of a kid sidekick was barely acceptable in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It's absolutely anathema to Batman now, particularly this incarnation of him.
> 
> ...



_
I think Robin, or at least the idea of a Robin, is very much apart of the batman Myth.  Robin represents the future.  He represents Batman not only changing things for the better but teaching others how to change things for the better.  A Tim Drake Robin would be a great idea for a future movie.. again done right. Tim's not some sidekick.  He's a unique character in himself and one of my favorite young characters in the DC universe. 

Again it's how they do it.   Heck before this movie if you would have told me that they'd have three villians I would have grimaced as well.  With such a great movie franchise in the works, they can't afford to pick and choose what part of the mythos they will take and won't take._


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 20, 2005)

*bleh* Going with Mouse on this one, I was never a big fan of Robin and would just as soon never see him in this particular incarnation. The less we know of other DC heroes aside from Bats I think the better. He was always the classic solo act anyway.


----------



## Henry (Jun 20, 2005)

Everyone keeps saying the movie had three villains. From my standpoint it really only had two. Falconi had so little plot development that I'd barely count him. He was really only a setup to introduce the Scarecrow, in my opinion.

As for Robin / No Robin, I'd have to agree partially with Mouseferatu. Batman has always to me worked better in the movies without Robin. There's nothing that a plucky kid sidekick would bring to the table in a darker-toned movie.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> *bleh* Going with Mouse on this one, I was never a big fan of Robin and would just as soon never see him in this particular incarnation. The less we know of other DC heroes aside from Bats I think the better. He was always the classic solo act anyway.



ONe of the number one reasons IMO why superhero movies don't work is because they refuse to acknowledge the existance of other super heroes.  If you ignore the world that the original material is adapted from then you're not being fare to the adapatation.  A key reason why Spiderman was successful is because they made references throughout both movies to other superheroes which made the world more real.


----------



## Insight (Jun 20, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I think Robin, or at least the idea of a Robin, is very much apart of the batman Myth.  Robin represents the future.  He represents Batman not only changing things for the better but teaching others how to change things for the better.  A Tim Drake Robin would be a great idea for a future movie.. again done right. Tim's not some sidekick.  He's a unique character in himself and one of my favorite young characters in the DC universe.
> 
> Again it's how they do it.   Heck before this movie if you would have told me that they'd have three villians I would have grimaced as well.  With such a great movie franchise in the works, they can't afford to pick and choose what part of the mythos they will take and won't take.




This is where I think they could take the concept of Robin and make it work with the darker story.  Batman is going to need _something_ to bring him back his humanity after fighting evil for a long time.  I'm not a huge Batman fan, but I know that he has been portrayed in varying shades of light and dark over the recent years in his books.  Perhaps Batman gets to the point where he is almost a criminal himself, and here comes Robin to remind him that he's human.

Robin doesn't have to be the 'plucky sidekick'.  They can 'darken' Robin just as they did Batman for this series.  Heck, call him Nightwing for all I care.  There is a lot the writers can do with the kid and not make him lame or detract from the tone they have going.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 20, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> This is where I think they could take the concept of Robin and make it work with the darker story.  Batman is going to need _something_ to bring him back his humanity after fighting evil for a long time.  I'm not a huge Batman fan, but I know that he has been portrayed in varying shades of light and dark over the recent years in his books.  Perhaps Batman gets to the point where he is almost a criminal himself, and here comes Robin to remind him that he's human.
> 
> Robin doesn't have to be the 'plucky sidekick'.  They can 'darken' Robin just as they did Batman for this series.  Heck, call him Nightwing for all I care.  There is a lot the writers can do with the kid and not make him lame or detract from the tone they have going.



I agree. Tim Drake reads as dark (I"m not talking aTeen Titan's Tim Drake).  I"m not saying that they should definiately do it just that it is very possible to that they could do a Robin and do justice to him as well.  Can you imagine an R rated Batman and Robin movie?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 20, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> This is where I think they could take the concept of Robin and make it work with the darker story.  Batman is going to need _something_ to bring him back his humanity after fighting evil for a long time.




I've heard this before, and I don't buy it. Batman only needs something to "bring him back his humanity" because a few writers decided that was the case, and all other writers since have felt roped into it.

There are a lot of dark characters out there who don't have kid sidekicks, and work just fine. And even if you want to argue that Batman needs people, he _has_ people. Alfred. Jim Gordon. Rachel, if she lasts beyond this first movie. He _has_ people with whom he interacts on a human level.

I'm sorry, but I don't care how much they try to darken the character, or how they try to work him in. I have problems with the _very concept_ of Robin, and I simply don't believe any modern incarnation of Batman needs him in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 20, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> ONe of the number one reasons IMO why superhero movies don't work is because they refuse to acknowledge the existance of other super heroes.  If you ignore the world that the original material is adapted from then you're not being fare to the adapatation.  A key reason why Spiderman was successful is because they made references throughout both movies to other superheroes which made the world more real.




*blink*

I own both Spiderman movies, and I don't remember a single reference to any other superhero.

(I suppose you could be counting some of the costume ideas he goes through in the first movie, but I don't really see them as qualifying in that regard.)

Can you point 'em out?

Now, that said, this is something else we apparently disagree on.  I actually prefer that most superhero movies keep the focus on the main character as more-or-less unique. I don't actually _want_ most of them crossing over, and I feel they work better that way. This is _particularly_ true of Batman, who is, when push comes to shove, a normal guy. I don't feel the existance of true superhumans would fit into the Batman universe as portrayed onscreen.

Hopefully, they'll change my mind if/when they do the Batman/Superman crossover. But right now, I must admit I'm opposed to the idea.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 20, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Hopefully, they'll change my mind if/when they do the Batman/Superman crossover. But right now, I must admit I'm opposed to the idea.





Only if it is done DK/Miller style. I love seeing Batman beat the stuffing out of Supes.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 20, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> ONe of the number one reasons IMO why superhero movies don't work is because they refuse to acknowledge the existance of other super heroes.  If you ignore the world that the original material is adapted from then you're not being fare to the adapatation.  A key reason why Spiderman was successful is because they made references throughout both movies to other superheroes which made the world more real.



Are you talking about Aunt May's reference to Superman?  If so then I'm afraid you missed a joke.

The only major superhero movies that "acknowledge the existense of other superheroes" that I can think of are the two Schumacher Batflicks.  You may want to rethink your criteria for what makes a superhero movie work....


----------



## fba827 (Jun 20, 2005)

Insight said:
			
		

> As long as we've got the spoiler thing going, anyone else think that kid Batman saved (the one Rachel was huddling over during the fear sequence, etc, and the one to which Batman gave that device earlier) is going to turn out to be Robin?  After all, he did say he "couldn't find his mommy".  What if mommy and daddy are dead, and Bruce Wayne takes the child in as his "ward"?




Do they list the kid in the credits -- does the boy's character have a name there?  Anyone notice?


----------



## Pyrex (Jun 20, 2005)

IMDB credits simply list him as "Little Boy".

Given that other incredibly small parts (Barbara Gordon for example) are listed by name, I doubt that "Little Boy" is going to be Robin.


----------



## Kage Tenjin (Jun 21, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> I own both Spiderman movies, and I don't remember a single reference to any other superhero.
> 
> ...






			
				Spiderman 2 said:
			
		

> "Dr. Strange"
> "Great, but its taken."




It's one toss-off line in the film, but J. Jonah Jameson does mention Dr. Strange as an actual person.


----------



## Insight (Jun 21, 2005)

Pyrex said:
			
		

> IMDB credits simply list him as "Little Boy".
> 
> Given that other incredibly small parts (Barbara Gordon for example) are listed by name, I doubt that "Little Boy" is going to be Robin.




Well, that could be for a number of reasons, not least of which could be to avoid spoilers, although they _did_ list Barbara Gordon.  It's possible they are keeping their options open, or maybe it's just a coincidence.  In my experience, however, movie lines ("I can't find my mommy") are rarely a coincidence.  Stuff like that gets cut if it's not important.


----------



## Steve Jung (Jun 21, 2005)

Jarrod said:
			
		

> Unless Ra's was the actual Ra's, and now Batman only _thinks_ that Ducard was Ra's....
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was amusing that while Wayne burned down Ra's' house, carried Ducard out, and made sure he would be cared for, Ducard just burned down the house. On the other hand, my wife did note that Wayne did leave Ra's for dead



In the scene where Ra's is talking to the trapped Bruce, I whispered to my friends, "You were the chosen one."


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 21, 2005)

Kage Tenjin said:
			
		

> It's one toss-off line in the film, but J. Jonah Jameson does mention Dr. Strange as an actual person.





Actually, what he says is, "Good, but taken," or something to that effect.

Which could just as easily mean "That's the name of a comic book character" as "That's the name of a real person."

AFAIAC, that's no more solid than the Superman joke in the first movie. For it to qualify as the mention of another superhero who actually exists in that universe, IMO, it must clearly refer to something that must actually exist, with no real room for interpretation. The only example I can think of is, as someone mentioned before, the two references to Superman--one to Superman himself, the other to Metropolis--in the Schumacher Batman films.


----------



## Berandor (Jun 21, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I agree. Tim Drake reads as dark (I"m not talking aTeen Titan's Tim Drake).  I"m not saying that they should definiately do it just that it is very possible to that they could do a Robin and do justice to him as well.  Can you imagine an R rated Batman and Robin movie?



I can imagine an X-rated one.   

Opposed to Robin, as well, but willing to give Nolan (if he does it) the benefit of the doubt now.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 21, 2005)

fba827 said:
			
		

> I don't believe it is either, the commericals even have him in it so it isn't as though he's a secret character. plus, as you said, they show ra's pretty much at the beggining of the movie.




What I was implying by begining was when news of the movie first broke, not actually the begining of the film, but thanks for getting my back.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jun 21, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> God, I hope not.
> 
> This series, and this version of Batman, should stay as far away from the very _concept_ of Robin as is physically possible. The idea of a kid sidekick was barely acceptable in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. It's absolutely anathema to Batman now, particularly this incarnation of him.
> 
> ...



_

Now Mouse you know Hollywood doesn't use common sense. They just look at the bottom line. If some exec thinks writing in a teenage Robin into the script will bring in teenage girls then guess what even if it butchers the script Robin will be in the movie. It seems that once a movie becomes succesful everyone wants to put their mark on it. They try to mass market it because they want more money, but what they end up doing is driving away the core audience.

It's still early I haven't had coffee- rant over _


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 21, 2005)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> I own both Spiderman movies, and I don't remember a single reference to any other superhero.
> 
> ...




Listen to the dialogue and the newspaper articles.  They make references to fantastic four, daredevil and superman.  My friend says there is an xman reference in the second one but i am not sure.  They also use superheroes in plural once or twice.  

The problem with the first batmans and other movies is they pretend that their movie is self contained, thus dilutting the content.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 21, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> The problem with the first batmans and other movies is they pretend that their movie is self contained, thus dilutting the content.





Diluting? How is focusing more on the core material diluting anything? I don't get that one.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 21, 2005)

KaosDevice said:
			
		

> Diluting? How is focusing more on the core material diluting anything? I don't get that one.



Diluting in the fact that you are producing a watered down version of the world, thus changing the world.  Pretending batman is the first person to put on tights and fight crime  creates a different world than that of the comics.  Some movies turn out to be great movies but many fail at true adaptations by changing one of the important things about the story, the setting.


----------



## KaosDevice (Jun 21, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Diluting in the fact that you are producing a watered down version of the world, thus changing the world.  Pretending batman is the first person to put on tights and fight crime  creates a different world than that of the comics.  Some movies turn out to be great movies but many fail at true adaptations by changing one of the important things about the story, the setting.





Uh, got to disagree with this one. When Bats was originally designed by Bob Kane I think the existence of any other superheroes in the 'Gotham Universe' was probably the last thing on his mind. I don't think any of these superhero flicks assume that the main character is the only one to suit up, but they do tend to be pretty stand alone. Look at just about any superhero origin story really. The are pretty solitary endeavours.

I would say a setting with *anyone*  wanting to put on spandex and fight crime in groups or solo pretty much fits the setting.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Jun 21, 2005)

Well, with the Ra's revelation mentioned beforehand, here's an interesting question:

Does this mean that, feasibly, Watanabe's character is/was Ubu?


----------



## Klaus (Jun 22, 2005)

That was my guess since before the movie was released.


----------



## Pants (Jun 22, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Diluting in the fact that you are producing a watered down version of the world, thus changing the world.  Pretending batman is the first person to put on tights and fight crime  creates a different world than that of the comics.  Some movies turn out to be great movies but many fail at true adaptations by changing one of the important things about the story, the setting.



Considering that the setting in the comics is a sea of inconsistencies and rewrites, I don't consider that a bad thing at all...


----------



## Klaus (Jun 22, 2005)

> Pretending batman is the first person to put on tights and fight crime creates a different world than that of the comics.




In the Animated DC Universe, Batman is the first. In the first episodes of Superman: tAS, Martha Kent tells Clark she doesn't want him using a mask, or people would think he was like that horrible Gotham character.

BTW, the Barbara Gordon character isn't Batgirl/Oracle. It's James Gordon's wife (the Batgirl/Oracle Barbara Gordon is Gordon's niece/adopted daughter).

Gordon's only child is his son, named (iirc) John. In comics continuity, Gordon divorces from Barbara by the time he makes comissioner, and she moves back to Chicago with his son. Gordon then acts on his affair with fellow cop Sarah Essen (later Sarah Essen-Gordon). Sarah gets killed by the Joker at the ending of No Man's Land.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 22, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> In the Animated DC Universe, Batman is the first. In the first episodes of Superman: tAS, Martha Kent tells Clark she doesn't want him using a mask, or people would think he was like that horrible Gotham character.
> 
> BTW, the Barbara Gordon character isn't Batgirl/Oracle. It's James Gordon's wife (the Batgirl/Oracle Barbara Gordon is Gordon's niece/adopted daughter).
> 
> Gordon's only child is his son, named (iirc) John. In comics continuity, Gordon divorces from Barbara by the time he makes comissioner, and she moves back to Chicago with his son. Gordon then acts on his affair with fellow cop Sarah Essen (later Sarah Essen-Gordon). Sarah gets killed by the Joker at the ending of No Man's Land.



Actually he's not the first, he just comes before Superman.  But the animated series acknowledges the universe.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Jun 22, 2005)

In the TAS universe, Bats *is* the first.

In Post-Crisis DCU continuity he's right after Supes of the Silver Agers.

EDIT: Ah, whoops. Misread your post.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 22, 2005)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Actually he's not the first, he just comes before Superman.  But the animated series acknowledges the universe.



 Yeah, I forgot the Grey Ghost.

Anyone remember any other?


----------



## Dakkareth (Jun 24, 2005)

Mmhh, did anyone else immediately think of  Planescape's Rilmani, when Ras explained about the full scope of the League of Shadows' activities? Working behind the scenes for thousands of years, bringing down civilizations in the name of balance ...


----------



## Nuclear Platypus (Jun 27, 2005)

While I haven't seen the movie yet, I do disagree that Robin can't be brought into the movie. However he'd be something of a throwaway character. Yup, Jason Todd. Good way to bring in the Joker (post change) and make him Batman's #1 archenemy. The Joker's background could be a file Bats reads instead of a waste of film.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 27, 2005)

Just a minor thing, but was the pronounciation of Ra's name bothering anyone else? My main source of Batman info was the animated series, where his named was pronounced "Raysh", but in the movie they pronounced it "Raz". My brother and I are debating, which is correct? I think the former, but that's solely due to an episode of Batman Beyond where Terry pronounces it "Raz" and Talia/Ra's corrects him, saying it's "Raysh".


----------



## Zappo (Jun 27, 2005)

Dakkareth said:
			
		

> Mmhh, did anyone else immediately think of Planescape's Rilmani, when Ras explained about the full scope of the League of Shadows' activities? Working behind the scenes for thousands of years, bringing down civilizations in the name of balance ...



Not really; Rilmani really work for balance while the LoS is at best misguided and more probably outright evil. One of Ducard's speeches in the second half of the movie says that they had already tried to destroy Gotham by ruining its economy. Basically, _they_ created the current condition of the city, for which they want it destroyed! If I had to accomunate the LoS with a Planescape race, I'd think 'loths.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 27, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Just a minor thing, but was the pronounciation of Ra's name bothering anyone else? My main source of Batman info was the animated series, where his named was pronounced "Raysh", but in the movie they pronounced it "Raz". My brother and I are debating, which is correct? I think the former, but that's solely due to an episode of Batman Beyond where Terry pronounces it "Raz" and Talia/Ra's corrects him, saying it's "Raysh".



 The correct pronounciation (being an Arabic word) is the one on the film, with the sharp RAH (like the egyptian god). "Demon's Head" and all that...


----------



## Harmon (Jun 30, 2005)

Sorry, I thought it was obvious from his first appearance in the movie.  

But then I have a habit of figuring out things in movies quite quickly where it relates to- "ha!  Bet you didn't guess that!"  Umm- about ten minutes ago.  

Not sure why I do that.  Its not every show, or every movie, so its not 100%

Good movie though- seen it twice now.


----------

