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

[Pyrex]

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]

*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?

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

*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.

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]

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.