I think everything you've said here is exactly what they're trying NOT to do with the new Batman film (which incidentally, is my most anticipated of the year, perhaps even more so than "Revenge of the Sith".) If anything, Joel Schumacher's last two Batman films were degenerating into the old Batman Series - this looks to be a trillion miles from it. Gritty, brutal and honest - the kind of film I've always envisioned Batman deserving.

This looks to be the film that fans of the comic book (and especially Frank Miller's "Year One" series) have been waiting for. Yes, we've all seen Bruce's parents die in Crime Alley, but we've NEVER seen how Bruce trains and actually becomes Batman on the big screen. I think once people realize that's what this film is, they will come out in droves to see it.

True, but that statement applies to almost anything. Heck, staring at a steaming dog turd left on the side of the road is better than watching Batman & Robin (...of course, some may ask "what's the difference?" To that, I have no answer.)

It's just you....

And where in the movies have we already seen his origin? Definitely not the 1989 Batman with a ridiculous flashback of the Joker killing his parents.

And explain to us how these movies are going to degenerate into the old Batman series?

This is only going to go one of two ways: 1. An intense, well thought out & well made film - hands down best Batman film ever. 2. An incredibly cheesy attempt to make Batman too sympathetic to his own cause and a ton of over-the-top-gimme-a-break action.

So far I see all number 1 from these early trailers.

The problem with DC heros, as David Guyer has said it many times, is that they are to Iconic. Marvel's heros can be human and you can relate to them. So he really wanted to set out to make Batman something you can relate to. 40 minutes of build up is great for the long run.

As for his gadgets. He needs equipment. The plain gray tone shirt with a bat symbol on it would be insane for anyone to go out and fight in. You have people shooting at you and so forth. He needs some body protection.

they made it so that those toys are explained better.

I hope you are all right and I am wrong, but to be honest I doubt this movie can be done without exploding into a a giant cheese explosion!!

I think the public suffered digital wars (SW, LOTR, etc.) to the max and thats why films like Troy, King Arthur, Alamo, etc. are starting to bomb. I now think that people have suffered super hero origin stories and may well be sick of these as well. I know I am almost there.

Personally, I just do not want to see Batman's origin. I've seen Bloodsport and Kill Bill, I don't need to see another pasty white man with determination turned into steel by the legendary master of kung fu. Been there done that wayyyyy back in the 1990's way too often. And what's the payoff for all the training? Will he fly? Crawl on buildings? Smash things with his fist?

No, he has a utility belt that defies logic and punches and kicks people like bruce Lee with a 2 ton rubber suit on.

Sorry to be so down on it, but this just holds no luster for me. Schumacher killed any and all movie Batman anticipation for me.

Well, Kerborus, I'm pretty sure WB isn't worried, as I don't think the movie audiences will share that opinion. People are excited to see Batman onscreen again, and considering a terrible looking, terrible terrible Batman movie can open to 40 million in 1997, this film will no doubt do boffo box office. I'm not sure what Troy, King Arthur, and The Alamo have to do with this movie at all though (and Troy was a hit...why does everyone insist on calling it a bomb). And Star Wars and LoTR are...well, I don't know what relevance that has, but obviously those were massive blockbusters. nonetheless, Batman Begins does not seem to be a CGI extravaganza, so it's a rather irrelevant comparison.

Nonetheless, this is the Batman movie most fans have really wanted to see. Batman never got an origin movie, and quite frankly as a character he never really got center stage. Here we have someone who's giving us those awesome elements of Batman toys, the big gothic city and Bat villians, but creating an actual character.

Maybe you're right jaeufrauser. Maybe not. If you read the comparison above closely, you may understand it.

I know that I'm a Batman fan and I for one, do not want to see Batman's origin. Nor have I been waiting for it. I know his origin, as does any Batman fan (it's beaten to death every few issues in the comic books).

I would rather see the movie have a serious plot, weighed down with REALITY, and he should lose the rubber suit. Batman does not deflect bullets, he's stealthy and dodges them. Anything else to me, is in Schumacher's realm. If he continues to shoot grappling hooks with 100 ft. of cord (which comes from his ass I guess) and if he drives a 'Batmobile' through town, this will be little more than a cartoon.

I have been waiting for a movie that changes the rules a little and paints Batman in a 'reality' filled world. ADAPT the character for live action, he just does not translate from the comic to the big screen very well. Both Spider-Man and the Hulk movies changed the origins and the powers to make the characters a little more believable, but for some reason Batman films refuse to (hopefully this one does not).

If I want to see the Batman comic book, I'll read him in one or watch the cartoon.

Maybe I'm wrong, I guess we will all see.

Yeah, totally realistic.

You have to be shitting me. You really want batman to dodge bullets on the screen? It just doesn't translate well on screen.

If you want to see a comic book movie that has little or nothing to do with the comic, watch DareDevil or one of the Schumacher Batman films.
You seem to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You want to see Batman dodge bullets and be realistic? Yet you don't want to see the batmobile, the gadgets, or any insight into his character? Sounds to me like you just don't want a Batman movie period.

He wants the BatMatrix.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how Hulk or Spiderman are in anyway more realistic than the first two Batman movies. What they were is dramatically realistic, as in the characters seemed more human than the outlandish characters in Burton's films. But from a plot perspective, they're all equally silly. And if you want realism, Batman wears body armor. You're asking them to make it real, but then you want him to wear spandex to fight crime. That just doesn't make sense. If anything, Nolan is making the film you're asking for...realistic, within the framework of the story. Cause if they made Batman completely realistic, he wouldn't have a cave, he'd have more guns, he'd have more body armor, he wouldn't dress like a bat, and...well...he basically wouldn't be Batman.

Batman can wear full body armor and do Kung-Fu? And i'm not saying he should dodge bullets like Neo, I'm saying he doesn't get in the line of fire. He usually knocks the guns away with Bat-a-rangs... SIGH.

I guess Batman really can't be realistic. Like Jack said, they just don't translate into realistic movies like the Marvel properties. And thus, this is why I for one am not excited about this movie and why I feel it will be as silly as the first four.

neither translates well. You may be bitching about the full armor. Just imagine how much bitching was around when x-men went from colorful suits to black leather jackets and pants.

Blade's translation... well lets put it this way.. Blade really only takes his name from the old tomb of dracula character.

Lets all turn to The old punisher, captain america, fantastic four, and JLA.

Super hero outfits don't really translate well and the subs that they create for the films are either a hit or a miss. The Flash worked, Superman worked, Spider-man worked.

But you can't expect a rich guy who has government contracts with weapons development to go out and fight crime without some protection. This is year one in the sense. He is going to make mistakes. Much like the book, Batman made a lot of mistakes and that is part of what makes it good. This isn't the hard core tough as nails batman who has the experience just yet. This is the Batman who just got the idea and needs to find a way to do the job in a sane manner.

Agreed on all points.

FWIW, I cannot understand the people who are griping about Spider-Man 2 not getting any Golden Globe or other prestigous awards. True, it is a great superhero movie, arguably one of, if not the best one ever made. However, when it all boils down it's still meant to be nothing more than escapist fun; this movie just happens to be done exceptionally well.

It's only one review, so I didn't think it needed it's own thread. Anyway, here's a first review supposedly from a small test screening they had. Assuming it's real, it's very positive about the film. I skimmed the review, it's apparently spoiler full, but everything points to a pretty kick ass and epic Batman film.

http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=19399

That shits been known for like six months now. i don't want to spoil it for anyone but Bruce Wayne is actually Batman too. I know you can't tell with the mask but it is.

You should spoilerize that just for those people who don't know. Not everyone knows it.

Anyway, that conversation is nearly 2 months old.

You guys are hilarious.
Batman = don't translate well into reality
Bugs Life = nowhere near reality, nevermind the fact that bugs talk in the movie!
Incredibles = nowhere near reality
Star Wars = 10000 more years into the future, maybe

It's a movie for crying out loud. Get over it.

Thanks Slow...I didn't know!!!

Really?

I guess you're bringin' the funny.

Huh!?!?!

and I quote...

"A LONG TIME AGO....."


I think your'e thinking of DUNE which is some 10,000 years in the future.

IGN has posted some new pics:
http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media...71/imgs_1.html

My favorite:

I'm not a big fan of the Scarecrow mask