Director Chris Nolan apparently spoke with Laceby News about whether he'd come back to direct a sequel - "If David's writing it, Christian's still Batman, and everyone else is returning.....me not returning would be like the only student of a graduating class skipping the big day to wash the car" said the British helmer.

He dropped some other hints such as "Like Begins, one clear cut villain isn't the plan [though]" and the likelihood of Robin appearing "The studio wasn't interested in Robin. We weren't either. This is a young Batman, so Robin's a few films....not for a few pictures anyway. Dick Grayson's still in a crib somewhere. I seriously doubt I will even be involved when Robin's in the franchise" says Nolan.

I'm sorry but I just couldn't buy Scarecrow character and take him seriously. His "death" in the movie was a disgrace and disrespect to this maniacal and yet passionate character. Scarecrow was fired from a University where he taught "fear" subjects but in the film he is portrayed as a young doctor wanna be punk. As you can see you didn't learn the real truth about Scarecrow and in fact you've been misguided.

If you superhero lovers love Batman Begins I want to say that Scarecrow's character is a total mess. He is completely different from comic books Scarecrow. Its not in chronological order nor his correct "true" story.

The man was obsessed by subject of "fear" but sadly, we were focused on something totally different.

He was suppose to be the second Ichabod Crane only with a twist.

The only twist that I saw was Ra's Al Ghul's "Hollywood bullshit" surprise. Won't spoil it.

Also, Gordon drives batmobile, Alfred kicks some serious ass...hell, next time let him wear a suit and be Batman :lol:

Should I go on?

Yet you loved The Hulk. Can you honestly tell me the whole villain behind that? I think anyone who likes the hulk and accepts the cluster fuck that is the final battle in that movie has no ground to stand on in complaining about Batman Begin's action.

Again, Begins isn't a direct translation. But considering Crow was a doctor in the film, I really don't know which film you were watching. It looked pretty good comic to film translation. Wanna be Punk? What the hell are you smoking? See, this is why your "LOL IT SUCKEKEKEKEKEKEKEK HURRR" defense is terrible. Crane wasn't a punk. he looked well groomed and was a doctor. If you mean something else, you really aren't communicating it well and calling him a Punk is really off. Spot on to me. as to what he is in the comics while still basing this whole thing in reality.

As for Al Ghul's. You complain about villains translation on film in the form of Scarecrow's not being correct. But they got Al Ghul down perfect. He isn't an asain. I don't see why he should have been Ken. But having Nelson play him was perfect. You get his look down perfect. The only thing lacking was him calling Batman a detective. other than that. Spot on right.

Dude, read some HULK comic books, willl ya?

Dude, my point exactly. He was a doctor but he wasn't a Scarecrow. He became Scarecrow when he was a professor at Gotham University. However, he was NEVER EVER well groomed. He looked like an idiot and he always was bullied for his goofy looks. In this movie his so charming, sophisticated and intelligent. The scene where he had "bad hair day" doesnt make him super scary Scarecrow. Also, I think casting for Scarecrow could have been better.
Next move?

You should carry over this message to mister ang lee. But to just out do you, someone shouldn't have to read the comics to realize a piss poor attempt of The Absorbing Man in a film. Crane on the other hand was self sufficant in the film. You saw him abuse his power and you have a clear understanding on what his character is doing. Compared to Hulk were it was 10 minutes of flower looking and another not one ounce of clearing up what exactly is going on with absorbing man.

Again, this counters your claims about villains in a film. While the absorbing man sucked ass in the hulk movie and made very little sense to anyone watching, you still loved Hulk. It was a terrible attempt at a Hulk Villain. Yet you are critical with the handling of crane which was more on scale with the comic compared to anything Hulk had to offer. Atleast the scarecrow was crane. Unlike hulk were the absorbing man wasn't even Carl Creel. You want to complain about inaccurate comic films? Lets talk about that one.

Odd, I try in a small way to support this guy, and somehow he misses it entirely. -ohbfrank-

My ranking:

1. Spider-man 2
2. X-2
3. Spider-man
4. Superman (in spite of a terrible ending)
5. Batman Begins (in spite of its flaws)

Flaws in BB:

1. Choppy awkward editing in a few spots, especially the fight scenes
2. Casting the Dawson's Creek chick and grossly underdeveloping her.
3. Convoluted finale with the microwave thingie and the train and Gordon driving the Batmobile
4. Scarecrow is wasted and his backstory is adjusted to its detriment to fit into a fairly convoluted story

But they got Batman and his psychology, Lucious, Gordon, and Alfred right in a BIG WAY...and kudos for that.

Oddly, I cannot make a list like the above for Spider-man or Spider-man 2, which is IMO the pinnacle of the genre.

I can't believe you guys are complaining about Gordon driving the Batmobile. Like I said earlier, I believe Batman giving Gordon the Batmobile showed just how much Batman trusted Gordon. As point out by another poster, "Begins" is the 1st Batman movie to highlight that very important relationship in the Batman universe.

The previous Batman movies butchered most of the villain's stories. The good thing about Scarecrow is they didn't provide us with some corny thrown in story and stupid one liners to appease everyone. Instead they stuck to telling the story of Batman. How Crane became SC is insignificant to the overall story IMO.

They could always go into more detail about Scarecrow in a future film. Honestly, Scarecrow is the Darth Maul of Begins IMO. He is a pawn to Ra Al Ghul as Maul is to Sidious.

My problem was simply that the batmobile was...or at least appeared to be quite complicated, and it was somewhat difficult to believe that bats took the time to teach him how to use the weapons system...or for that matter how to drive the thing in the heat of battle.

I want to jump into this one. As a person familiar with Hulk and Batman lore but not with the comic books per se.

I personally liked Hulk, but I'd have to agree with your assessment of The Absorbing Man -- While I was watching the movie it wasn't totally clear what the heck was going on at first with this character, heck I didn't, until reading your post even realize that this was a villain that actually appeared in the comic. I thought it was made up for the movie because of the kind of nebulous way he was presented. I mean I got the fact that he could absorb energy, use it, etc...but it took some thought and several viewings to totally understand. Very interesting.

I also agree with your assessment of Crane. All comic-to-screen translations are not going to be literal Sin City, most take liberties with some details that don't affect how that character is viewed by the moviegoer. Not knowing much about the Begins comic, from my viewing of Begins I understood Crane to be, not a punk, but a doctor who had serious power issues and used that power to create fear in his victims to control them. Those points were entirely clear to me that fear was his weapon. Whether he was slick here as opposed to unkempt in the comic, I think his essence was captured wonderfully in the film.

I agree, what would be the point of delving deeper into Crane's character? It would take the attention away from Bruce Wayne/Batman, which remains the center of the story throughout the film. I realize Crane has an interesting backstory, but from the filmmakers' point of view, he's just one of the villains who lends the opportunity of adding another layer of depth to the story they're already focusing on. The decision for scarecrow is a good one--obviously the major theme is fear. It's not surprising that all the villians use fear as their weapon: the mob boss, crane, and Ras to some degree, and ultimately it becomes Batman's weapon in the end. Fans of the comics might have seen him as being wasted potential, but he served his purpose to the story well.

One of the problems that arises when you have a bunch of terrific actors cast in supporting roles is you can't give all of them the screen time they deserve. I wanted to know more about Scarecrow not so much for informative reasons as much as I really like Cillian Murphy and loved when he was on-screen. I felt the same way about Freeman's Fox and Oldman's Gordon. I thought Neeson and Caine were represented rather well. If Joe Schmo had played Scarecrow, I don't think the characters comparatively limited screen time would be getting as much mention.

I thought he was perfect as the SC as well. One of the things I loved about the animated series is how characters popped in and out all the time. In some cases they waited for later episodes to tell backstories of existing characters.

It sounds like Warner is interested in making quite a few of these films and SC will return eventually. Better to have more of a story left to tell about him than just having a cool looking character that will help move the plot along. That where Joel and company goofed IMO.

Um, why? He's talking about the movie. If the film has to have its audience depend on reading the basis for adaptation, then it has failed.

Really? Yesterday a friend asked me if I could integrate The Killing Joke into Batman 2.
I came up with this.The Killing Joke becomes the third act, and uses Harvey Dent instead of Commisioner Gordon. This sets it up for Two-Face in movie 3.

I would agree with that, though I still think it is a very good film. I just didn't feel like getting too critical with this film, for much the same reasons as I don't like to overanalyze and nitpick the Star Wars prequels. I could critique Holmes, how poorly the action was shot, and the entire plot about vaporizing Gothams water supply and all the problems inherent in that scenario. But it's just such a fun film, that I chose to not nitpick the film.

What Batman Begins did right where Hulk dropped the ball was have villains that serve a purpose in the life and motivations of the main character. Their presence allowed for Batman to develop in both character and ability. The Absorbing Man, however, seemed like little more than an attempt by the producers and studio to have Hulk duke it out with some monster for the sake of having a fight, and this is from someone who more or less liked Hulk!

That sort of storyline followed in the film would actually be good. I was mainly thinking that it would be redundent to have Joker try to put stuff in the water. But the other aspect of killing joke, that is, any one will turn the way joker did given the circumstances like that using harvey instead of gordon would be a good way to both use the comic aswell as keep the film fresh.

I'm not saying that HULK is an ultimate superhero movie but for me HULK was better (way better) than BATMAN BEGINS.

You complain about last "final" fight but my concern is about the whole BR movie. From the beginning to the end.

I am a comic book maniac and I expect a superhero movie which is closer to the original content (HULK) or take for example, dead right perfect (SIN CITY) books-to-film realization.

Batman Begins, didn't not capture even 40 % of comic book stories including Gotham City, Characters (villains and heros), freaking Batmobile, acting, casting, music and etc.

You may say whatever your want Batman Begins still has D- in my book.

You want to know my best comic books movies?

Enjoy!

1. The Crow
2. Batman Returns
3. Darkman
4. Sin City
5. Hulk
6. Spider-Man
7. X-Men
8. Hellboy
9. Superman
10. Judge Dredd (Screw Spider Man 2)

Again, you call yourself a comic book maniac and that the details have to be very close to the comic in order for you to even consider it. Yet, as I pointed out, the villain in the hulk wasn't even who the character is in the comics. They made it so the absorbing man was his father. What the hell is that? Any self respecting comic fan who claims batman was bad because they screwed around with crane not being unkept but will be willingly accepting of changing the characters identity has no ground to stand on in that complaint.

Batman Begin's bat mobile take was very realistic in translation. They made it so that it could be understandable as the new batman investing in his toys. He's bearly getting the whole thing down and that is one aspect of it.

I liked sin city and that is one of the best translations. But even that had to be cut back to some degree on screen.

If you want to have a discussion about the pros and cons of the film, that's fine. But you bring up the most illogical examples that contridict yourself in telling what you are accepting and not accepting of in a comic book film.

As for the city, it did capture gothom. I'm not sure what comics you've been reading, but Gothom is not the circles that burtons or the other batman films represent. Those had to much bright colors, to many larger than life items and not enough street centeric basic buldings. Batman is suppose to be a fish out of water in a sense. He isn't suppose to be overshadowed by the design and structures of the city. If that was the case then no one would notice or care about batman. He's just another whacky center peice in this city.

Have you've read Batman Year one? Seemed like a good take off of that on many angles. As for the Villains, I disagree. They captured Ah Ghul perfectly as a economic/global terrorist who is a master of those fighting styles and of course has swordsmenship down. He is all about deception. The film captured that with the twist perfectly and his look was perfectly down. I don't see why folks wanted Ken to be him considering he isn't asian.

You may think what you like about the film, but don't go running around complaining about something just for the sake of complaining or to start some flame war. If you have some disagreements with the film then express them in a manner that isn't that of a 12 year old.

The Hulk is an extremely shallow character, even for a comic book. There's just not much to him. The most depth the character has is with his inner struggle and the struggle against his alter ego.

Hulk failed was for one reason. The audience wanted to see one film, but they got another. Ang Lee tried to elevate the character and source material to a much higher level than it ever was. He took the greatest depth the source material has, Banner's inner struggle and repressed feelings, and tried to make an art film. It just didn't work. It was the wrong idea, from the wrong director. The audience didn't want that. They wanted Hulk smashing shit for 2 hours.

But I am kinder to Hulk because at least Lee tried to make something great, and didn't succeed entirely. At least that is admirable compared to a filmmaker going for the lowest common denominator, a dumb action film with shallow characters, which is the best you can expect out of the Hulk. I mean c'mon. He's a man that turns into a giant green Hulk.

Well, let's rephrase that. Burton's Batman didn't have a lot of color to them, especially bright color. Those were Schumacher's Batman. Burton's Batman films were very dark with understated, monochromatic colors. I thought Burton's Gotham, while stylized, represented Gotham well, while Nolan's was a bit too realistic. A happy middle is probably the best look for Gotham.

Finally caught this yesterday and loved it. Definitely my favorite comic book movie of all time.

Great acting, great storyline that focused in on the character and his motivations, good action.

Can't wait for the sequel!

I hope all of the good word of mouth helps BB maintain its ticket sales over the next few weeks. I have spoken to several people who aren't big into comics who say they thought BB was a good movie, and it's getting a lot of recommendations. I guess regardless of how it does theatrically, the almost guaranteed DVD sales will drive it to the point of meriting a sequel.

My original hope was Batman would wind up in Dark City.

But alas, oh well, I'm more than happy with Mostly-Realistic Gotham.