Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2340891" data-attributes="member: 8394">I think Bale was in the better movie, made a better Bruce Wayne and made a very good Batman, I just don't think that disqualifies Keaton in any way (and most people apparently agree, if you go by the &quot;Your favorite live-action Batman movie&quot; poll in this forum, where it has the second most votes, event counting the nostalgia votes for the 1966 Batman). I definitely think Felon is having a shouting match instead of an argument, hasn't really made any good points, and is trying to intimidate with rhetoric instead of persuade or convince anyone.Perhaps because it was titled Batman, not Batman Begins? Batman Begins is far from flawless, but the exposition was effective partially because the villain was a piece of Batman's origin. If they'd laid it out the same way, then had a totally different villain, it wouldn't have worked. To the extent that the Joker was part of Batman's origin in the 1989 version, that origin was included in the movie. Anything more than that probably wouldn't have worked very well narratively.None of what you said above really has any bearing on whether or not it was faithful, unless you're saying every Batman movie has to rationalize his motivations, tell all the backstory, include all the villains and so on. These are things the 1989 Batman simply skipped over for the most part, so it doesn't make sense to call it unfaithful on that account. Or do you mean the two different ways Bruce's parents are killed? If so I didn't realize there was only one version of that in the comics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wayside, post: 2340891, member: 8394"] I think Bale was in the better movie, made a better Bruce Wayne and made a very good Batman, I just don't think that disqualifies Keaton in any way (and most people apparently agree, if you go by the "Your favorite live-action Batman movie" poll in this forum, where it has the second most votes, event counting the nostalgia votes for the 1966 Batman). I definitely think Felon is having a shouting match instead of an argument, hasn't really made any good points, and is trying to intimidate with rhetoric instead of persuade or convince anyone. Perhaps because it was titled Batman, not Batman Begins? Batman Begins is far from flawless, but the exposition was effective partially because the villain was a piece of Batman's origin. If they'd laid it out the same way, then had a totally different villain, it wouldn't have worked. To the extent that the Joker was part of Batman's origin in the 1989 version, that origin was included in the movie. Anything more than that probably wouldn't have worked very well narratively. None of what you said above really has any bearing on whether or not it was faithful, unless you're saying every Batman movie has to rationalize his motivations, tell all the backstory, include all the villains and so on. These are things the 1989 Batman simply skipped over for the most part, so it doesn't make sense to call it unfaithful on that account. Or do you mean the two different ways Bruce's parents are killed? If so I didn't realize there was only one version of that in the comics. [/QUOTE]

Verification