About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you for posting this. I am a big fan, and its good to see that this is out.

John

Post 1

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 3:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I am vengeance, I am the knight, I am BATMAN!"

Batman Animated. Very special. Love the "Bat Deco" city scapes, among other things. Those were the words Batman used to will himself out of chemical-induced paralising fear that was intended by his enemies to kill him. Love that stuff, all the best flicks have that somewhere in the plotline.

Hope that the new Batman film has followed this fine example. I think this time it has. We don't get to find out down here for a couple weeks yet but I'm expecting a review for the movie to pop up here any day now.


Post 2

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw the movie last weekend, it did keep the feel of the animated series and the comic intact.  I really loved how the film kept Miller's version of character intact, with a generous helping of Fransisco D'Acconia thrown into Bruce for show.

It's the total opposite of everything else that's been done on film so far at no step during the process are you tempted to point out how this could never happen it's like you're seeing it happen before your eyes.

---Landon


Post 3

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ripper.
Can't hardly wait. Odd we have to...I thought the days were gone when we had to wait our turn for the release Down Under. Guess not.

Already looking forward to the sequel, if it includes Luke Skywalker playing The Joker as he did so well in Batman Animated.

Rick out.


Post 4

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 9:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I loved Batman Begins, however I was reminded of Darkman with Liam Neeson as the brilliant scientist who is severely disfigured by criminals and is bent on revenge. Both these movies portray a very dark  side of human nature when revenge is the primary goal. On balance I think I preferred Darkman.

Sam


Post 5

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think there might be a point in BB you were missing. Batman is to a large degree about a man dancing on the edge of a cliff. Vengance is important to him, but he understands that giving into the firey emotional nature of it would be his own destruction. If he gives into his emotions and kills he sees himself as no longer being a good person, or even a person.  He must always keep vigilant of the nature of his character and actions.  Conversely he becomes stronger and brighter due to this introspection. As he grows as a person he does it because the challenge and the good he does brings satisfaction into his life, as opposed to the darkness that started his journey.

Contrasted to Darkman (a film which I myself loved) It seems like at the end of his arc he doesn't stay with his path out of the fact that it enriches him and brings joy to his life, it's more like he stays with it because he's been consumed by his own darkness and makes no further attempt to fight it.

This is my view on the subject, and I thought I'd share it.

---Landon


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I watched "Batman Begins".  Solid acting from Batman, Alfred and Gordon.  I do, however, have some uneasiness with the underlying theme.  Seems like some of Batman's distinguishing traits were taken away to make him more acceptable to the pop culture. 

He is no longer vengeance, which is explicitly rejected in the movie.  He used to take fighting crime personally, now he does it because society needs him to.  His own personal convictions are viewed negatively as an obstacle to becoming a better person if he couldn't think beyond himself.  He used to be self-driven and purposefully made himself to be the great fighter that he was.  Now he's lost and needs direction.

The Batmobile was pretty cool though.  And the action scenes realistic.

JJ


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
J.J. I think you misunderstand the concept of "vengance" being repudiated in stories like this.  The idea is a person giving into their emotions regardless of cost to themselves or anyone else. Part of the hero cycle is to shrug off your immature approach to the situation and move towards something more logical. 

---Landon


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 - 1:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

You were probably thinking about the scene of Bruce Wayne with the gun when you talked about vengeance.  No question about it, that was not a good move on Bruce Wayne's part.  But that's not what Batman in the comic series means when he says "I am vengeance".  I'll talk more about that below.

First, it's helpful to see the two alternatives presented in the movie.  In the beginning, vengeance is portrayed as short-sighted personal vendetta.  The point is to inflict pain regardless of cost to oneself.  When vengeance is defined as such, it only makes sense that it's quickly rejected.  But the subsequent alternative presented is for Bruce Wayne to ignore any personal pain, overlook any wrong that others have done him, and instead be a selfless hero who does good for the society because Gotham needs him.  When Katie Holmes, who is the moral conscience in the movie, tells him that he should do something because Gotham needs someone like him with money and power, that he is nothing unless he forgets his personal feelings and go beyond himself, her argument is based fundamentally on altruism.  When you think about it, given the choice between stupid vengeance and altruism, neither is appealing.  That's because we are given a false alternative.  The movie forgets to mention that these are not the only choices out there!

The Batman in the comic series views vengeance differently.  The point there isn't to inflict pain on evil, but to bring about justice.   Batman took away the lesson from the crime on his parents, abstracted it and generalized it to realize the effects of all criminals.  His vengeance is deeply personal from his personal tragedy.  That's why he puts so much energy into training, developing weapons, keeping tabs on the underworld, staying mentally sharp as a razor, and makes it his lifelong mission to fight crime.  He does this all for himself, not because Gotham needs him to.  That's why he instills fear in criminals because they know that with Batman it's all personal.  That he take it upon himself to relentlessly and methodically hound them down and see that they get what they deserve.  And that's the Batman we love.

JJ


Post 9

Sunday, July 17, 2005 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JJ,

A well reasoned response. I still stand behind my sentiment to a point though.  After as many years Bruce has spent donning the costume, it's not all about loss, regret, fear and pain... It's about fulfillment, the fact that it makes him happy that criminals will be brought to justice who might've slipped through the cracks otherwise, that some may be discouraged from criminal activity entirely out of fear, and that his actions may lead to another child sometime somewhere not having to go through what he went through. You're right it's not because Gotham needs him (though it does) but because being Batman fulfills him.

I agree about the Rachel Dawes character in general I almost think the film would've worked better without her (though I was glad when it was made clear that they would not be getting together). Just a little to unmemorable and "pop" ethics for me. "Pop" ethics comes in the way and a lot of stories like this and my enjoyment of them. I mean here I am enjoying a great "Shadow" episode, great mystery, great acting, great story and then I hear Lamont verbally felate a senator for being "the most selfless man ever to take up public office." The writer obviously wasn't trying to craft a new and radical form of ethics, so this was mainly done in the interest of pragmatism and speed. 

Story's still great just I always groan when I get to that part.  In order to get through most of the better stories in this genre it's often necessary to put up with a bit of "pop"ethics, think back to reading "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead" for the first time, and how much time in the narrative was spent simply on developing and grounding the ethical premises by which her heroes were to be judged as such... most writers don't have the fortitude to go to that effort, (or if they do they fall short on keeping that part interesting).

Well that was my take on it anyway

---Landon


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.