I'm just hoping the slew of apprehensive people - the ones that thought the new Batmobile looked horrible and alone would ruin the movie, and such - wind up seeing it and liking/loving it.

Admittingly, the trailers for the movie weren't the best, but that made the movie that much better for me - when was the last time you saw a movie trailer that gave away next to nothing.

You speak the truth!!!!! Had I'd been the actress opposite Bale they would have had to cut the kissing scene alone to bring it down to a PG-13, not to mention all of the other love scenes I would have insisted on and/or improvised.

That kiss was so sad I'd forgotten there was one.

You know, I did too....I saw it again on Saturday night at IMAX and during it I couldnt remember if they ever kissed or not.

It was LAME.

If they get rid of Holmes, I won't miss her. She's served her purpose and they don't need to waste time explaining why she isn't around. Maybe for the next film, the can lose the love interest plotline completely.

As for the Scarecrow, didn't Gordon mention that they still haven't been able to find Dr. Crane?

I dont know if this was said but Warner dropped out Katie Holmes from the next Batman flick.

nah, just in the post above yours and a few times in the last couple of pages. :p

:lol: oops

Anything short of the built in hype of Ep. III or Spiderman 3 was not going to blow out the box office this year, it's down across the board. You can partially blame the success of DVD for that (my ticket to this cost almost as much as the DVD probably will). I think WB has to be pleased with the numbers. This a reboot of a series long dead and buried, which the last entry was a killer. This one used the Superman formula, went with a relative unknown and surrounded him with quality big name supporting cast members (instead of cramming a $20million-a-picture star in to sell a bad movie to the public), and it worked. It's the best of the Batman films in my opinion, though not flawless, but most of it works.

I'll be very interested in the sequel, particulary to see how the Batman/Gordon relationship develops (keep out Robin and bring a real detective storyline). Whether Holmes returns or not, there will be a love interest, that's a studio mandate for these type of films.

Here's my 2 cents about seeing Batman on Imax:

Went to go see it at Atlantic City's (NJ) new Imax theater. Cool, but NOT worth the money! This is the simple reason why: Hollywood movies are not filmed for Imax theaters. Imax actually has more of a square screen than a widescreen like normal movie theaters, so they actually letterbox the top and bottom of the Imax screen! Plus my brother, who was with me seeing it for the second time (first time at a movie theater), said that even a tad bit of the sides of the picture were cut off.

Also, the sound was powerful and you felt the explosions, but you don't get as much of the surround sound effect as you would in a well-taken care of theater.

Finally, fifty feet (well, minus whatever the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen) of the quick-cutting close-up action sequences were nauseating! I had no idea what was on the screen half the time!

This was my first hollywood imax movie and will probably be my last, unless the film was originally filmed in a square format instead of widescreen.

If it's even available (I didn't check), DO go see it at a theater that has DLP digital screen (and a theater with well-taken care of and adjusted audio) instead of Imax. These DLP theaters are the best way to see a hollywood movie. (by the way, specks of dirt and hairs caught in the projector gate are much bigger in Imax and non-existant in DLP!) However, I recommend seeing an Imax movie originally filmed in Imax! Those are worth the money, not the Hollywood movies that they re-format and transfer to Imax film

I heard that there will be a sequel to the flick. Who do you think the villian will be?

Really, I hadn't heard that.
It's just too bad they didn't give us a hint about the next villian at the end of the movie.

No idea. They should have teased this somehow at the end of the movie.

I'm calling bullshit.

1. For films shot in High Definition (such as Once Upon a Time In Mexico, Sin City, and the Star Wars prequels), DLP is simply the way to go for the ultimate experience. However, for a movie shot on actual 16mm or 35mm film, DLP may be a better presentation, but not by much. I'd prefer seeing a film in the medium it was shot in during it's theatrical run than seeing it in digital. Take for example July's The Devil's Rejects. The movie itself takes perfect advantage of it's use of 16mm cameras and I would hate to see it (again) in digital and not blown up to 35mm theatrically.

2. IMAX, by far, is higher resolution than DLP and I would prefer watching a movie shot on film blown up to a 70mm IMAX presentation. The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions looked simply fantastic on an IMAX screen when I saw them. I saw Reloaded twice in 35mm and twice in IMAX and the IMAX print easily blew that of the 35mm print away. Same applies to Revolutions (however, I saw that three times in 35mm and twice in IMAX).

Maybe you should start a thread on the movie talk board about who the next villian should be?

Wow. Everyone's trying to be Groucho at the moment. ;)

Well they did have Gordon handing Batman a joker card at the end. I'm hoping for The Riddler.

Normally I hate fan fiction or fan manipulations, but I have to say, whoever created this was an artist.

http://mars.walagata.com/w/emergencyexit/joker22fy.jpg

WOW!!!!! That picture of the joker is amazing. Jack was way too cartoony looking to be a good Joker. That picture literally gives you the creeps. Joker in the comics has always had that psychotic look that scared the crap out of you and that fanfic pic really has captured that.

Who is that? Looks like Prince.

I've seen it in both formats, and not to call out your brothers memory, but I didn't notice any cropping on the sides, nor did my friends who saw it with me in both formats.

The whole IMAX screen isn't used, but its still larger than any regular screen you're going to attend....much larger. I've seen plenty of films in DLP over the past year and a half and none have looked as clear and clean as the IMAX presentation of Batman Begins....frankly I was a little stunned. When I saw it again in 35 I was shocked that some of the details that seemed crystal clear in IMAX appeared non-existant in the 35 print.

My only complaint is the the screen is almost too big, occasionaly I noticed I was swiveling my head to take in the whole screen.

It does look nice

^ ^
but who is the actor portrayed in that fan art?

2008? If they were going to make a sequel, I would hope it would come out in 2007, I can't wait that long!!!
;)

Though I'm a hetero male, I have to agree. :lol:

That said, the kiss had all the passion of a firm handshake or a friendly hug. I still believe Rachel Dawes was, in some unseen early draft, originally Harvey Dent and was then rewritten as a chick because Bruce didn't have a love interest. That angle to her character felt totally tacked on and both Holmes and Bale looked very uncomfortable when they kissed.

Get there a little early and get good seats. I saw it last night at IMAX in Lincolnshire, IL and it was awesome. I was sitting all the way in the back, left off center. I learned my lesson after the INSANE experience of Potter 3. I was sitting in front row, first seat on the right. Next time when I go and those are the only seats left I'm getting my money back. :)


Back to the film, it was great!!! Batman is my favorite comic book character so I was excited about seeing it considering all the talent that was involved and I was looking foreward to a new darker Batman. It seemed more like real "film" rather than a comic book movie which surprised me a little. I knew there was gonna be more emphasis on character rather than action sequences, but Nolan just went all out, said f u to the way these movies have been made before and created a comic book movie like we have never seen before. (Honorable mention goes to Rodriguez & Miller)

I never thought that my two favorite movies of the year would be about comic book heros, Sin City and Batman Begins. While I enjoy most of the other "superhero movies" (disliked Daredevil & Elektra, really liked Hulk) it's been a while if ever that these types of movies brought so much excitement out of me. Not only do I consider them to be cool comic book movies, I consider them to be great films as well.

After seeing the trailers, I wasn't too keen about Bale being Batman. Now that I've seen the film I have no complaints. I loved Keatons character, but Bale just took it to another level. Before seeing this I thought that the 1989 Batman was the best comic book movie ever made IMO (yes, even better than Superman) but that honor might sway to Begins with another viewing or even Sin City which totally blew me away.

Gary!!! It's really cool to see him as Gordon. I like him playing a "sane" character for a change. Everyone fit in nicely [cough]Katie Holmes[cough], especially the guy who played Bruces father. :up:

Even though it was a very dark film considering the PG13 rating, I wished it went a little further in the "insanity" that is Batman. I think that maybe my expectatins have been a little high with previous rumors of Aronofsky (one of my favorite film makers) being considered and the direction he would have taken the character. Maybe he could direct the sequal since even Bale said he wanted it to be more hardcore.

It was very cool to see the town I grew up in as Gothom. My sister works downtown and she saw them filming the movie from her building and even took some pictures on her cell of the Batmobile. I wasn't sure about the new Batmobile considering it looked so different from anything we've seen before, but it was cool as hell. The way it handled and all the manuvers seemed very realistick. Since the is "The Beginning" it seemed fitting that it hasn't taken the bat shape yet, but if they they do a sequal, I hope they change it just a bit.

I'm ready for a sequal!