Talk:Batman Begins/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Batman Begins. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

---

The plot summary may be copied from http://www.imdb.com. Ferdinand Pienaar 13:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ya know, I kinda like it and think it sums up everything pretty much. I dunno who wrote it, but they're good writers!! Jonathan.Bruce 04:24, 13 Sept 2006 (UTC)

The current (very long) plot summary section should probably be renamed to "Story", as it is certainly no longer a summary, and reads more like a story than a plot description. - James Foster 06:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Better yet, it should be condensed to cover the main plot elements and actually remain a plot summary. What's there now needs that treatment (and only covers the very beginning of the movie). AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please see the discussion section titled "Plot Synopsis" below, I'd like to open this topic up.

I found the synopsis on the page for Alien Vs. Predator to be equally disorganized and poorly written and helped to re-write the overview of the film. I believe that encyclopedic entries have no need for spoiler-filled, long winded, play by play descriptions of films (such as is currently being seen here on the BB page). I'd like to re-write the synopsis section, and while doing so condense it and remove the spoilers and surpurflouos information. I'd like to hear feedback from a few people before taking this on; please keep in mind that the page will be open for other people to edit during and after my own revision work, so it's hardly like I'll be taking the page over.--71.140.148.233 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead please. Needs to be done imho. And while you're at it, maybe you can have a look at the bloated star wars movie synopses as well. Borisblue 20:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the plot synopsis and I think it's lacking. It really only deals with the first half of the movie. It doesn't even mention the Scarecrow as a villian or the evil plot to destroy Gotham. Should I expand on it? A R Blackwood 10:54, 03 June 2006

I don't know where this may fit in but it apears that the so far un-named fake Ra's may be based on Ras' Al Ghuls body gards Ubu. From the comic books. Knight22 5 June 2006

You mean the fat Asian guy at the end? I've never been able to tell if it's supposed to be the same Fake Ra's from the beginning--the seemingly thinner Asian guy. (Who was obviously chosen because this is Ra's appearance in the comics, I believe.) Onslaught Six 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That kinda p*ssed me off when I first saw it, coz Ra's is supposed to be Asian, not some European guy, but it was interesting to see Liam Neeson play a bad guy for a change. Hopefully, he comes back in a sequel, providing he ain't in his sixties/seventies by then! Jonathan.Bruce 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ken Watanabe plays Ra's Al Ghul, and Liam Neeson plays Henri Ducard. There is no fake Ra's Al Ghul, because Ra's transferred his soul into Ducard at some point. I know this because he does that to his daughter Talia on an episode of Batman Beyond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jienum (talk • contribs)

Batman Begins is not Batman Beyond.

Henri Ducard is not Talia.

Just thought I'd point that out. EVula 20:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you read, EVula? Do you know the significance of what I said? Well, according to what you're saying, I don't think you do. I did NOT say Batman Begins is Batman Beyond, nor did I say Henri Ducard is Talia. I said the Ra's Al Ghul played by Watanabe was THE REAL Ra's Al Ghul, and that Watanabe's character TRANSFERRED HIS SOUL INTO DUCARD'S BODY JUST PRIOR TO DYING. That's what he always does, and that's how he always cheats death. Now try reading this, if you can. And until you know what I'm saying, don't bother speaking about what you have no idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.220.218 (talk • contribs)

Good point, maybe Ra's Al Ghuy passes his soul onto a follower before dying. But, there's always the thought of a Lazarus Pit nearby......I hope that he comes back in a sequel after being rejuvenated in one of those things. Jonathan.Bruce 5:01 June 7, 2006 (UTC)

WAYNE (confronted with the imposter): You're not Ra's. I watched him die.

DUCARD: But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?

WAYNE: Or cheap parlour tricks to conceal your real identity?

DUCARD: Surely a man who spends his evening scrambling on the rooftops of Gotham would not begrudge me duel identities.

It has been well established, on this site and other media, that Liam Neeson is Ra's Al Ghul all along. In the comic books Ra's maintained his existence by periodically immersing himself in "lazarus pits" giving him a kind of immortality.Having mortal bodyguards named Ubu, after battling in a tournament to the death to replace the old one. What I wanted to know was someone could find the bases of the character that is played by Ken Watanabe in the movie. From the writer director or someone like that. Knight22 28 June 2006

---

This is speculation my part, but EVula's comment "Batman Begins is not Batman Beyond" seemed to be saying that the same plot elements enstablished in the DC animated universe do not apply to the continuty enstablished in Batman Begins, as Jienum was referencing events from Batman Beyond as "evidence" of him being able to do so in Batman Begins. In my opinion, whether or not Ra's performed mind transfer in the the comic series or animation seems to have little impact on the plot of Batman Begins, as Christopher Nolan and David Goyer have taken liberties with their presentation of the Batman mythos. For instance, In the comics Ra's al Ghul was depicted as being of Arab dessent(possibly removed from the film as not to infer connection with current events), had an environmental motivation for his actions, as opposed to seeking "true justice", and also in the films was there no mention of the lazarus pits he used in the comics to maintain his youth. Further, in the comic series, Bruce trained with Henri Ducard in France, not in an unnamed country in Asia, and likely was unaware of the existance of the League of Assassins/League of Shadows prior to becoming Batman. The removal of the more supernatural elements of the plot, such as Ra's alchemic abilities, as well as the overall mood of the film seems to infer that the film was taking a more "realistic" approach, for lack of a better word. The dialogue "But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?" "Or just cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity, Ra's?" seemed to infer that Liam Neeson's character was Ra's all along, not simply a new "host", along with the fact that "Ducard" kept a decoy around at Wayne's party, which infers that Ken Watanabe's character was a decoy as well. No where in the film, apart from Ducard's comment, was Ra's inferred to have the supernatural abilities he possesed in the comics.

On a side note, the post following EVula's seemed to be opposed to the civility policy on Wikipedia, specifically "now try reading this, if you can, And until you know what I'm saying, don't bother speaking about what you have no idea."

A recent addition mentions that intentions for a sequel have been announced, with the same cast except for Katie Holmes "because of her relationship with Tom Cruise". What exactly does this mean? Did the studio not offer her a part because of the relationship, or did she turn down the role because of her relationship? -DynSkeet (talk) 20:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed this comment. General Hollywood rules dictate that the opposite lead must change in each franchise output. Her character was a bad idea in the first place.

Your "general Hollywood" rules sound like crap to me. They didn't replace Mary Jane in Spider-Man, did they?

Mary Jane is a major character in the Spider-Man comic books. James Bond, Austin Powers, Speed come immediately to mind in terms of the rule. -Acjelen 12:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

According to Batman On Film, it has something to do with her appearances on talk shows and television, where she spent more time promoting the high profile relationship and less time promoting the movie. I'll try and get some links this, as I feel it is an important reason for her not being included in a sequel. - Lastanzabianca

Y'all want my opinion?? TOM CRUISE IS F*CKING NUTS!! HE'S NUCKING FUTS! Jonathan.Bruce 11:35 July 4, 2006 (UTC)

Well, also her character is not nearly as necessary as any of the other characters in the cast in terms of preserving faithfulness to the comic book. Furthermore, there were different bat-girlfriends in each of the four original movies; I don't think anyone sees it as a snub to Kim Basinger, Michelle Pfeiffer, Nicole Kidman, or Elle Macpherson that they weren't asked back for sequels. It's just part of the Batman character and the "playboy" Bruce Wayne persona. I think it's a non-issue. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

That was widely reported at the time - here's one link: http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_1724618,00.html "Warners Bros chiefs are reportedly unhappy that Holmes' whirlwind relationship with Cruise diverted attention away from Batman Begins." "General Hollywood Rules"? Please. --Chancemichaels 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

There's a new paragraph at the end of the plot summary about changes from the comic book to the movie. I can see this growing into its own section, and it doesn't really fit as part of the plot summary; might that be a good idea?

Also, I'll buy the change of Ra's Al Ghul's motives as a considerable change, but going to a movie theatre, not leaving an opera is rather insignificant. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:54, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• You think details on Batman's origin story are "insignificant"? But really, it would have been perfectly fine with me if you'd just removed "considerable". And, I'd just like to say, that paragraph was not intended as any kind of slap at this movie. On the contrary, I enjoyed it, but trivia's also fun, and I thought maybe some would find that of interest and expand on it. CanadianCaesar 08:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • If Bruce and family had been instead leaving a porno theater I can see how that would make a big change in how the movie plays out... :o) Seriously, though, it's an insignificant change that makes no difference to the plot, and to me it crosses the line from interesting trivia into obsessed-fan minutiae. Don't get me wrong – this has instantly become one of my favorite movies. It's not often that I'll pay full price to see a movie in the theater for a second time. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 16:24, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe the difference is significant? In the original, the movie the Waynes had just seen was "The Mark of Zorro", which later influenced Bruce's decision to be a masked avenger, but in the movie it was apparently the opera "Die Fledermaus" that emphasized Bruce's fear of bats. That's an interesting storytelling point, I think. User:ShawnVW
      • That's actually a bit of interesting trivia, which I wouldn't mind being added back in. What did the young Bruce Wayne see in the theater in the original origin story? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth noting that the quote is a paraphrase of a famous FDR quote? -- pcr^talk 01:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder whether or not this article should even have a quote section , when there is a link to the film's wilkiquote page. Perhaps it should be remove? Discuss. Boxclocke 03:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it because it is redundant, and it wasn't the first time a quote section existed in the article before they were moved to wikiquote. I also moved the quotes from it that weren't already on the wikiquote article to said page. When it was first added, I refrained from removing it then because I kept expecting someone to do it before I could. I'm surprised that no one even brought it up until now. --Bacteria 06:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Alot of emphasis was placed on the Batman's gizmos in this movie (perhaps to showcase Morgan Freeman's considerable acting skills), to the point where HowStuffWorks has an in-depth article on the Batsuit shown in the movie. Perhaps a subheading is needed here to go into the extraordinary detail given Batman's arsenal in this movie? Tom S.

That's a good idea! Subheading it is!

Indicating that Liam Neeson actually plays Ra's is a spoiler, and the section either needs to be marked as such, or the cast list should be reverted such that Neeson plays Ducard and Watanabe plays Ra's. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think that including it in the cast list on here and the plot summary helps those who haven't seen the movie understand better. It's just I have my opinions...you got yer own....but it would help make sense to everybody. Gnome sayin'?

I moved the end-spoiler tag to just below the cast list. Android79 is right - the whole point of spoiler tags is to allow people who haven't seen the film to still read the article without ruining the experience when they do. The cast list as included contains major spoilers, so if it's going to stay in its present form it should be tagged as such. --Chancemichaels 20:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Seeing a superhero movie sequel is like visiting an Internet porn website and having six hookers and two gay prostitutes show up at your door. It's never what you were looking for and always too much. -Acjelen 23:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the playing card wasn't linked to the Joker character in the article. If something, it could be linked to an image/text about the actual card. People can keep on making the connection themselves if they want to.

How about this?

Gordon explains that a criminal in the lost "Narrows" area of Gotham has left calling cards at all of his crime scenes in the form of a playing card depicting a Joker.

Most people will be familiar enough with the subject to make the connection themselves, but we need to also cater to those unfamiliar with the Batman mythos. android79 22:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

7he Joker is of course a huge Batman villain, but I was hoping that they would continue on with their use of unused characters in the movies. The Mad Hatter and Mr. Scarface would make a great pair for example. MajinPalgen 17:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind that this is a rehash of the entire series of Batman films. The idea of "a different villain in each movie" used in the Burton/Schumacher films doesn't nessicarily apply to these films, as Nolan's films are in a sense a new "series" of movies, even if they are produced by the same company and center around the same character. In a way, the Joker is an "unused" character in the sense that he has not appeared in this interpretation of the Batman mythos. However, there are rumors of Black Mask appearing in The Dark Knight.66.24.229.233 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Heath Ledger will rock as the Joker!!! Can't wait for 2008!

I hate the literal interpretation of the ending "the Joker'll be in th' sequel!!" Ruins it as a nice intro-to-career and reduces it to "settin' it up for th' sequel." Bah. If the sequel includes Green-Hair at all it should be as an already established villain... we don't need to see every damn five minutes of the Bat's career, OK I'm done ranting now.24.165.210.213 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the second template at the top of this talk page, the template says, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." See The Dark Knight to learn about the Joker's portrayal in the sequel. Otherwise, please save your opinions unless they are relevant on how to improve the film article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the Messages section that was apparently lost when the page was reverted to an old version. If there is something wrong with Messages that it shouldn't be included, someone please advise.

I suggest deleting it from the page. The messages in any story depend on a person's point of view. I don't think that has any place in an encyclopedia. The section almost reads as if it was out of a review. I'm tempted to remove it, but I'll wait for a few more opinions. - James Foster 10:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The Messages section is POV and also constitutes original research. It should be removed. android79 11:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

All told, this movie is considered to be the favourite Batman movie for critics and audiences alike, even superior to the 1989 original.

Any numbers to back this up? A poll of viewers and critics? Or just somebody reporting a subjective opinion from the newspaper? eritain 17:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I liked "Begins" but every time I see Bale in costume he seems to be doing his best Michael Keaton imitation. The statement needs firm support. --Buckboard 10:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's good, 'cuz I've always said that Keaton was a great Batman but an awful Wayne. 'Cuz...I dunno. That hair. He just looks too damned nerdy to be a billionaire.....Why am I giving out my opinions on Wikipedia talk pages now? Onslaught Six 08:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Way too nerdy to be a billionaire...? --Switch 11:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

People keep going out of their way to remove him from people being discussed for the Dent role. I am hardly a Timberlake or Nsync music fan, so don't think this is some fan or vandal. The fact is, he is being mentioned and his name has come up in several articles. I know a lot of people don't think of him as an actor, but he has a film coming out this year with Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman and is supposedly getting into acting now. please stop this minor edit war. Get over the fact that you don't like the kid and remember this is about information, not personal feelings. AriGold 14:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Timberlake is in no way in consideration for the role. Provide a link to prove me wrong IceDrake523

• Here's 4 sites adding to the speculation:

"Christian Bale had better make sure the ol' Batsuit seams are stitched up. The London Sun is carrying accounts that former 'N Syncer Justin Timberlake is tops on producers' list to play the villain Two Face in the next "Batman" movie. It's perfect casting. After all, Leerface Timberlake ripped off a portion of Janet Jackson's costume to expose her breast during the infamous Super Bowl show, then Straightface Timberlake told reporters it was just a "wardrobe malfunction." "

http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1122543217121290.xml&coll=2

"Justin Timberlake is said to be among those being considered for the role of Batman villain 'Two-Face' in the next movie. A source told Cinescape that the 24-year-old former 'NSync singer would be "a perfect choice" for the role. Timberlake's upcoming movies include Alpha Dog, in which he plays a gangster's drug dealer, and Edison in which he plays a journalist."

http://www.killermovies.com/b/batmancontinues/articles/5265.html

"Justin Timberlake has been hotly tipped to play the next 'Batman' villain. The pop heartthrob, who is currently trying to launch a Hollywood acting career, is reportedly favourite to play evil Two-Face in the follow-up movie to 'Batman Begins', which stars Christian Bale as the Caped Crusader."

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/47762004.htm

"Justin Timberlake has been tipped to star in the next Batman movie as villain Two-Face. Timberlake is reported to be up against Liev Shreiber for the role, played in 1995's Batman Forever by Tommy Lee Jones."

http://www.star-ecentral.com/music/sleeve/notes.asp?file=archives/sleeve/2005/7/28/28JustinTimb&date=7/28/2005

Satisfied, fanboy? AriGold 18:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speculation only. There's hardly any proof of who's in the running to play Joker, let alone Dent/Two-Face. Saying Timberlake will be Two-Face is like saying Britany Spears will be Catwoman. Leave him off the last until we get word from the studio. IceDrake523
  • The whole paragrah was aboutr "speculation". No one ever said that anyone had been signed to play the role, the issue in question was who was being rumored as "possible casting choices". You yourself said "Timberlake is in no way in consideration for the role. Provide a link to prove me wrong", well, he apparently is at least in consideration and you were proved wrong. AriGold 12:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Justin Timberlake is a bad actor and it would be a severe mistake for Christopher Nolan to use the NSYNC prep as one of the Batman villains. Especially two-face. I'm still getting over the fact they are using Brokeback Mountain boy Heath Ledger as the JOKER. The right decision for the Joker should of been Crispin Glover. He is dark, creepy, and a has a weird sense of humor. He would fit the role of the JOKER like a glove. But instead they are using a C+ actor like Heath Ledger who only has A Knights Tale and Brokeback Mountain to back him up. But actually Justin Timberlake is even worse. He has nothing. Nada. Just some really bad singing.

---

From what I've read, it seems as though Justin Timberlake as Harvey Dent/Two-Face is just an unfounded rumor being thrown around, very similar to the rumors of Adam Sandler being considered for the role of the Joker. If you read through the history section for "The Dark Knight (film)", you'll see that many actors who were listed as canadates for the Joker, such as Hugo Weaving, Christopher Eccleston, and Crispin Glover, were removed due to the fact that there was little evidence that they were even being considered for that role. Further, the only actors listed as canidates for Harvey Dent are Josh Lucas, who has allegedly stated that he is intrested in the role, and Liev Schreiber, who has stated that he has not even been spoken to about the role, but was interested in the role. Adding to that, the only reason he is listed as a canidate is because, much like Crispin Glover, a large number of fans thought he would be a good actor for the role as he resembles Two Face as he appeared in The Long Halloween (in fact, I have good reason to remove Liev from the listing as soon as I finish this post). As for my opinion regarding Heath Ledger being cast as the Joker, though I am a bit skeptical of Chris Nolan making this choice, think about what roles Christian Bale played in before Batman Begins, yet how well (in my opinion) he did with the role. Nolan appears to have a knack for picking actors suited to the characters he wants to portray (watch Memento, Insomnia, or his upcoming film The Prestige). Also, think about how diferent the roles of a knight and a gay cowboy are (although I personally have never seen the film regarding the latter of the two). This seems to infer that Ledger is capable of diverse roles, although no one cannot be sure how he will do with the role until The Dark Knight, or at least a trailer, is released. Finally, according to both Nolan and Bale, this interpretation of the Joker is going to be much more dark than Jack Nicholson's, Nolan having referred to it as "very creepy and very extreme", and probably more down to earth given the nature of Batman Begins. It does, however, seem highly unlikely that they are going to use Timberlake as Two Face, anyway.66.24.224.205 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is already a section about Heath Ledger as the Joker on the discussion page for The Dark Knight, I would suggest you follow up there. Lastly, your post really didn't contribute ANYTHING to the discussion beforehand, Mike. As I said elsewhere, if you put opinion posts on Wikipedia, it is highly unlikely that anyone will respond. 66.24.224.205 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to your comment that Ledger only has A Knight's Tale and Brokeback Mountain to back him up, he was also in Lords of Dogtown and The Brothers Grimm, admitingly I have seen neither of these. Mike, you've mentioned elsewhere that you are a member of imdb, look up Ledger's profile and see what other movies he's been in. Where I admit that he has not been in all that many films, he may actually do better than expected, considering that the movies he is known for are, from what I've heard, not very well done (A Knight's Tale) or in other cases the target of baseless prejudices (Brokeback Mountain), which could lead to viewers misjudging his acting abilities. In regards to the films which are not well recieved, this could either mainly be the directors fault, or it is completely possible that Heath is simply a bad actor, in any case it is too soon to know how he will do with the Joker. The film Ned Kelly actually got fairly good reviews from imdb. At any rate, the decision to cast Ledger has been final for quite some time now, so debating his credibility does nothing for the quality of the articles.

66.24.224.205 23:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Well Tim, you do have a point by saying that I may be jumping to conclusions with Heath Ledger. But sometimes it takes basic judgement on predicting how good an actor or actress really is. I mean, you told me to check out Heath's filmography, and quite frankly, i think that only makes things worse. You mention movies like "The Brothers Grimm" which recieved a 5.9/10, and Lords of Dogtown which recieved a 6.6/10 rating. Both being not real good movies, otherwise proving that either Heath Ledger is a bad actor or just picks bad roles. He's mostly proven like in The Patriot starring Mel Gibson, that hes an ok supporting actor, but not leading. The Joker is a major villain role, and i think it is a major gamble for Christopher Nolan to pick an actor like Heath Ledger who has shown no sign of true acting talent; to play a hopefully sadistic role of the Joker. I would of definitly picked Crispin Glover for the role Of the Joker. He's shown that he can play differnt types of roles. Being the hilarious nerd in Back To The Future, and has shown his creepiness and dark side in Williard. So maybe this is the role that will reprise Heath Ledger as an actor, and will be redeemed for all of his recent bad movies. But i will still be skeptical until the day the movie is released.

---

Where I personally think that Glover would have been a good actor for the role of the Joker, he was never being considered for the role to begin with. The reason he was rumored to be a canidate for the role was because a considerable number of fans considered him ideal for the role, but the rumor was just that, a rumor (and if you go to the page on The Dark Knight, you'll see that the Glover was not listed as one of the actors who expressed an interest in the role). Similarly various actors listed as canidates for Harvey Dent were also just rumors, such as Leiv Schrieber, Jake Gyllenaal, Ryan Phillippe, Guy Pierce, and yes, Justin Timberlake (yet Schrieber is still listed as a canidate due to the fact that he has stated that he is willing to play Dent if offered the role). Further, my listing of different movies was not so much to find movies Ledger played in that were good so much as to put forth the possibility that he may be able to play different types of characters. Look up Ned Kelly on imdb and you will see that it where it got mixed reviews, a good number of them were in the 8.0/10-9.5/10 range. Keep in mind that Phillip Seymor Hoffman started off his career playing minor roles in (relatively) low key films.

Again, where Heath Ledger does seem quite a bit out of place for the Joker, keep in mind that Nolan seems to have an idea for what he is going to direct, and hires actors in terms of whether or not they can portray his idea (reportedly, Senn Penn was a primary canidate for the role of the Joker and declined due to scheduling conflicts, although this could just be a rumor). Batman Begins definatly had a more, for lack of a better term, "down to earth" atmosphere (with the exception of Dr. Crane's behavior near the end of the film), and Nolan has outwardly stated that his version of the joker would be less eccentric than previous incarnations, but will remain close to his look in the comics. As I stated before, the new Joker is stated to be "very creepy and very extreme", and, according to an old article which may or may not be all that credable of a source, (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2437.asp) the Joker in the Dark Knight "won't be zany and clowny but rather, in keeping with the tone of director Chris Nolan's films, will be dark and frightening, with a broad smile under his wide-brimmed hat." Where I am very skeptical of whether or not Ledger can portray this, keep in mind that, with the exception of with the exception of The Patriot and Brokeback Mountain, most of his roles were in low key films like The Brothers Grimm which really don't require all that much talent. This could prove that he is either: a)not being cast to the best of his abilities, or b) simply not a talented actor. If the latter is true, that leads me to wonder why Nolan would have cast him, perhaps he fits Nolan's idea of how the Joker should appear, or perhaps he sees something in him that is overlooked by others or underused in Ledger's films. On a side note, where you said this may be the role that reprises Heath Ledger, many people see Brokeback Mountain to have done that (where others see his acting in it as poor). Allegedly, one of the reasons Ledger was cast was to suprise the audience with his performance; if Robin Williams or Paul Bettany were used, people would have an idea as to how they would play the Joker, with Heath, people could actually be suprised by his performance. At any rate, casting an underused actor is, like casting an unknown, a gamble in that no one will know how his performance will be until the film is finally released.66.24.224.205 20:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Basically you're saying its a hit or miss type of situation. I'll agree with you on that. Maybe Heath will shock the world with a sadistic performance of the much acclaimed villain The Joker. Or maybe he will miserably do horrible and be the complete opposite of what the public wants and expects from the role. I will say that i dont have complete doubt in him, but im very skeptical. A good example of an actor who i disliked very much before, and like now is Leonardo Dicaprio. Hold on let me finish... If you've seen Martin Scorsese's The Aviator (2004) then you will understand what i am talking about. He did an incredible job in this movie, and i never would of expected or saw it coming from an actor like Leonardo Dicapprio. Who I used to refer to as "Leonardo Dicrappio". So maybe Heath will do in The Dark Knight for what Leo did for the Aviator. A great performance. But still, we have to look on both sides of the situation. I say if he does a good job, then put him in more bigger roles in the future. But if he bombs the role, he's gonna be yesterdays trash. And let me just say that I still have resentment towards him for participating in such an unorthodox type of movie, Brokeback Mountain. You know my political point of view, and i dont want to go to battle on that. Just see it in my point of view if you can breifly try. Anaylize both political party point of views if you will. I know for a fact, the left wing has no problem with a movie about gay cowboys. But right wingers like me, have a huge problem with it. And a role like that could affect me in a negative way on if i'd ever watch his movies again. But i'll give him a shot because i enjoy Christopher Nolan's work, and like you said, "he seems to know what he is doing". So more because of the director's choices, i'm giving Heath a second chance. But at the end, what everyone can agree on is we all want something fresh, dark, and new with this sequel. And it couldn't be done any better than Nolan himself. So Tim, i hope this movie will be great, and i'm very excited and anxious to see it.

---

In effect that is what I'm saying, yes. Still, Nolan has stated in one or more interviews that he plans to deviate from the previous film interpretations of the Joker, and make him much darker. It has also been mentioned that he is cosulting with Jerry Robinson, the man who originally came up with the Joker character back in the 1940's, on how to portray him in this film. Heath Ledger himself has allegedly stated about the perfomance being asked of him: "It's defenately going to stump people. I think it'll be more along the lines of how the Joker was meant to be in the comics, darker and more sinister. I wouldn't have thought of me ,either. But it's obviously not going to be what Jack Nicholson did." and, "It's going to be more nuanced and dark and more along the lines of a Clockwork Orange kind of feel. Which is, I think, what the comic book was after...". (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/060908m.php) As for what you said about Ledger's role in Brokeback Mountain, I will agree with you that if he does poorly, he will be more associated with Brokeback than the Dark Knight, and it may be a possibility that certain people will not see future movies of his (In my opinion, out of blatent homophobia of him being "that guy who played a gay cowboy"). Still, his willingness to play such roles shouldn't affect one's opinion of someone as an actor. As you've said yourself, Mike; Robert De Niro is more liberal on certain issues, yet you enjoy his movies regardless. At any rate, our discussion has gone on long enough, as until the film is released everything discussed is more or less speculation. With that, I'm going to end by listing several links which discuss this topic more in depth.

The Killing Joke, a comic that Nolan is suposedly using as reference for the Joker's character.

http://www.betterthanfudge.com/?p=925 , Which has an interview with Chris Nolan about the Prestige and the Dark Knight.

http://www.insomniacmania.com/news_default.php?id=3543 , in regards to Jerry Robinson's involvement

http://superherohype.com/news/featuresnews.php?id=4634 , which briefly describes certain details about the film's production.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2437.asp , which contains an old plot rumor from November 2005 which seems to coincide with current information (know that, as a rumor, how much of it is true is questionable)

Finally, in regards to actors rumored for the role of Harvey Dent/Two-Face

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0524197/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000202/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000630/

66.24.229.233 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Did you know A Clockwork Orange was so dark that it was originally rated X? Which means if Christopher Nolan is aiming for this type of performance for the Joker, this role is most likely going to be uncomfortably dark and sadistic. A whole new turn for the Batman series and other super hero movies. Which makes The Dark Knight even more desirable to see ASAP. I tell you what, if Heath Ledger gets this role down right, my respect for him as an actor will go up immediatly most likely. What I want from this role is probably what you want; which is something far from the ordinary, and something so dark that you feel his creepiness each time hes on screen. And yes, going back to Mr. Robert Deniro, i respect him greatly as an actor even though hes a left wing extremest. I just put aside politics with him, and which is something maybe i should do with other actors and actresses as well. On the matter of the role for two face, I either want Josh Lucas (who was very good in Poseidon by the way) or Liev Schreiber who was good in The Manchurian Candidate. If Ryan Phillippe is chosen, i wont be upset but disappointed in a way that i know the other two have great potential. It looks like Ryan would be like Christain Bale in the newcomer role, since he really hasnt been in anything noteable. Being that we have much more advanced technology and computer special effects, i want the Two face character to be so horrific looking, that i can barely look at him without gasping. That would really put a spin on the Batman movies even more. You're comment about A Clockwork Orange really has given me a much more better idea on how this movie is going to be, and its most likely going to be great. And by the way, this conversation can go on forever. There is no end to this, we can go over so much other things. But if you want to end it here, well then ok. We can start on a different topic or movie discussion room if you want. Overall, i think Christopher Nolan is part of the reason for keeping super hero movies alive in theaters. Since catastrophy films like Batman and Robin could put an end to super hero movies permenantly. If movies like Spiderman 2 and Batman Begins never came along, we'd probably wouldnt be having this marvel and dc comic movie adaptation frenzy going on right now. So I'd like to thank Mr. Nolan right now for his creativity and genious for the screen. No matter how corny this may be, i still would like to thank him.

---

I suppose that if I have anything to say or if I find out anything new I will respond. During a recent interview, Ledger made a similar comment about most pre-Batman Begins, saying that he hates comic book movies having stated that "they bore me sh*tless and they're just dumb. But I thought what Chris Nolan did with Batman was actually really good, really well directed, and Christian Bale was really great in it." Regarding the Joker, he stated; "He's going to be really sinister and it's going to be less about his laugh and his pranks and more about just him being just a f*cking sinister guy." I would suggest that you read it here:(http://www.moviehole.net/interviews/20060912_exclusive_interview_heath_ledg.html)

Until then, I'll wait and find out what I can. 66.24.229.233 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, the characterization of the Joker in the Dark Knight is, as I said before, based off the graphic novel Batman: The Killing Joke, as well as his first two appearences in the comics back in 1940, in which he was supposedly portrayed as a "straitforward mass murderer" who left his victims' corpses disfigured with exagerrated smiles. The Killing Joke is considered one of the darkest portrayals of the Joker. In it, the Joker shows up at Commisioner Gordon's home, shoots his daughter at point blank range through the spine, paralizing her, and kidnaps Gordon. He takes him to an abandoned carnival and performs psychological torture on him, primarily consisting of forcing him to look at images of his wounded daughter, his motive being to prove to Batman that under the right circumstances, anyone can become just as mad as the Joker is. This comic also depits the most widely accepted verson of the Joker's origin, in that he started off as an engineer who quit his job in order to become a comedian, only to fail miserably. Desperate to provide for himself and his pregnant wife, he agrees to assist a group of thiefs break cross through his old workplace and rob a building on the other side. During a meeting with the thiefs, the police inform him that his wife and unborn son died in an accedent involving a baby bottle heater. Later, the engineer tries to back out, but the ciminals threaten him into going through with it. The criminals are killed in a shootout with the police, and the engineer jumps into a tank of chemicals in order to excape Batman. When he finally gets washed out a drain, he looks at his reflection in a puddle, which has been disfigured into a clownlike appearence, and finally breaks from the combined stress. 66.24.229.233 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Wow, i am totally speechless. Do you know anything about Nolan using any ideas from The Killing Joke for the portrayal of The Joker in his movie? Or is he going his own way I wonder. But i hope he uses what you just wrote. I found it interesting on the portrayal of his background life before he became the Joker. Psychological torture and shoot outs sound a little over board for The Joker. We're border lining sadistic and cereal killer now. I guess it never really hit me until now that Nolan is really going to make him dark. Even though you've been telling me repeatively that he was going to be darker, your description and reading the Killing Joke really opened my eyes. My gosh, i have a little fear in me already. If Nolan sticks to this material, we're gonna have ourselves an unbelievably creepy and evil villain; something marvel nor DC never really have tried. Out of curiosity Tim, what would be your opinion on an R rated Batman? I think that wouldnt be good to the fact that all of the younger batman fans couldnt see it then. But im asking you this because The Joker really has a sick background life and sounds really grisley. SThings that could fall under the R Rating category. But i guarentee it will be PG-13. Alright Tim, thanks for that reading. I got a kick out of that one.

---

I highly doubt that Chris Nolan will be using the plot from the Killing Joke, but he will be basing the Joker's personality in part around how he acted in that graphic novel (http://www.betterthanfudge.com/?p=92500). You have to admit that Nolan's interpretation of Batman was considerably darker than Tim Burton's, so I see no reason why he won't be doing the same for the Joker. As for your comment that DC and Marvel haven't really tried going that dark, where the films haven't, the comic books certainly have on several occasions. In the comics, the Joker often would exhibit a rather sadistic personality, an example being him recently attempting to kill Batman in front of kidnapped orphans. So psychological torture and shootouts wouldn't be too much darker that the Joker in the conics. As for my opinion on an R rated Batman, I'd have to go with Christian Bale's idea that they should release two versions of the film, a PG-13 and an R (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Actor-Christian-Bale-wants-an-R-rated-Batman-movie-2813.shtml). With that, the producers could get the most people to see it in theaters (with the PG-13, as well as capture the dark mood of the comics (in the R version). 66.24.229.233 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, "Batman: The Killing Joke" was written by Alan Moore (V for Vendetta, From Hell, Watchmen) who is regarded as "bringing more maturity and literary sensibilities to a medium often dismissed as juvinile and trivial (comic books)." 66.24.229.233 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Alright. So it wont be the adaptation of the killing joke, but it certainly will be very dark like you said. On the matter of the P-13 and R, we actually discussed this in person. And you recall about our "unrated" discussion. Meaning release it in PG-13 and then have an unrated edtion come out on DVD. Either way I'll be happy. And forget about this guy who thinks he owns this site. "ohhhh i need you to cite your quotes" blah blah blah. Ok Tim, im signing off.

---

Signing posts is Wikipedia policy. --Chancemichaels 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

---

I'm going to have to agree with Chancemichaels about signing posts, not just because "Wikipedia says so", but just because it makes it easier to tell who's writing. Below the edit page, there is a box that has a number of characters to insert. Click on the character (~~~~) to sign your posts. And Mike, not to be nitpicky, but you spelled serial killer wrong. 66.24.229.233 23:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this discussion at the bottom of this section.66.24.229.233 23:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Ok Tim, i agree with you on having one main villain. Too many things going on at one time leaves less time for individual character development. Thus, being a disappointing performance most likely. But i do have to say I wont be complaining when they are all on screen. Just because it will increase the intensity between the charcters and make the movie more fun to watch. Im wondering how they are going to diversify the camera time for each villain in Spiderman 3. Oh, did i spell diversify wrong Mr. Swan? So actually, after saying that aloud, i could go both ways with this one. Give each villain good character development, and i say the more the merrier. Oh jeez, please dont take points off for me spelling merrier wrong Mr. Swan. Since you've made it noticible that you are some English teacher, it seems that some little spelling errors upset you and i should apologize...haha, jeez.

---

Actually, I really didn't care about the spelling error, as I have made quite a few. I just thought that "Cereal killer" should be pointed out, as it brought to mind the image of a guy running through a grocery store stabbing boxes of cereal. It didn't upset me at all, I just thought it was funny and if I were upset I would have pointed out the other irrelevent spelling errors you made. Second, I already said above that I didn't care about the fact that wikipedia guidlines said to sign it, I just figured it would be easier to spot out your comments, but either way I really don't care. Third, please don't use my last name while posting, I really would prefer to remain anynomous (I probably just misspelt that, too). Note that in all previous posts, I only used a first name. Lastly, none of the editors said a thing about posting at the bottom of the article, I just don't like having to scroll through the article in order to find where you posted, and then spend the time trying to figure out who posted when. With that, I'm going to continue this at the bottom of this page. 66.24.229.233 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I have two things to say, First, please sign your comments. This thread is unbearable to try to read because I don't know who's talking. Second, shouldn't this be discussed at the article for the second film? Oh, and third: Any of these caims need to be cited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've been using a different IP adress since my initial post, and it seemed as though it may be misleading to others reading this, but still it is regarded as polite to sign posts, so it seems as though I ought to do that. Also, the dates are quite a bit off, as I just went through and signed them, as to avoid confusion. Lastly, could you point out what claims were left uncited? I don't want to sound rude, but I attempted to cite most of the information I got from other websites, although I may have overlooked a few.66.24.229.233 22:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You really should register; it will give you more anonymity because your IP address is hidden on edits, sightly more trust/respect from other editors, and you can build a reputation based on the strength of your edits. You seem like a decent editor; I'd like to see more from you, but I'd prefer to know that it's you. If you ever need any help with anything, let me know. You can use the red phone. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

(I should note that this is meant as a continuation of the discussion above, not of the comments regarding signing posts.) Just to make it clear, the actors listed as candidates for Harvey Dent/Two-Face (Josh Lucas, Leiv Shrieber, etc.) are still rumors, and it is entirely possible that someone else may be cast in the role. Also, although this is made clear on the Dark Knight (film) page, I would just like to reinforce that Two-Face will not be an antagonist in the Dark Knight, rather, Harvey Dent will appear as an ally of Batman in this film, and become Two-face in Chris Nolan's third film. It is also rumored that the Penguin and Roman Sionis will appear in the Dark Knight, although as minor villains, much like the mafia don Carmine Falcone and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins. (http://www.comicbookmovie.com/news/articles/2437.asp), although as a rumor, whether or not it should be mentioned is open to debate.66.24.229.233 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the idea of only having one major villain in the batman films, partially because it allows the character more screen time to develop. Further, the films that had only one antagonist (Batman Begins, Batman (1989 film)) were generally more accepted by fans than the films with multiple antagonists (Batman Forever, Batman and Robin), although this was mostly due to the acting and overall mood of the films. Still, a small number of the complaints about these films centered around the "bad guys" seemingly competing with each other for screen time. 66.24.229.233 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Tim Tim Tim... You disappoint me. First off, i really dont care about what this guy thinks. Im not citing my quotes or showing evidence. He can piss off. Im not signing anything or inserting here and there. Second, you WERE being "nitpicky" when you all of sudden corrected a simple spelling error of mine like some English teacher. So just to show you I dont care about these made up rules, im posting my response to your comment where we "originally left off". Look Up. Stand tall Tim, dont let these "Prickipedia" nerds tell you what to do.

---

Just to let you know, I don't think that its even been confirmed that the Penguin is going to be in the sequel, that was just a rumor. Also rumored to appear in the sequels were Talia al Ghul and Black Mask, who you can read about here and here.66.24.229.233 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• • This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. CovenantD 01:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The section that described possible future movies was not encyclopedic, it read more like an internet rumor mill written by fans. I have removed all mention of possible actors and plots for movies that have not even begun pre-production. We all know that actors and scripts can change a great deal from concept to finished product and putting these in here at this stage feels too fanboy-ish to me. Jeff schiller 18:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

And yet the casting rumors and fan speculation list for the Joker in the sequel keeps reappearing in this article. Hmmm. Someone out there is really stubborn.

Something that struck me is that they put the hallucinogen in the water for weeks, and nobody in Gotham City seemed to have heated it enough to cause panic attacks (what about boiling eggs for breakfast?). Not sure how that'd fit into the article though. (clem 23:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC))

Somewhat along the same lines, a friend of mine pointed out to me that if the microwave emitter could boil water fast enough to launch sewer covers violently into the air because of the liquid-to-gas expansion, maybe there should have been people exploding (or at least having all the water boiled out of them...) from the same effect. --Pentasyllabic 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I edited the previous entry in the Trivia section of the article. On the special features disc of the Deluxe Edition, there is a featurette about adapting the comics to the movie. The interviewees (including Christopher Nolan and David Goyer) say which comics helped inspire them. Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls, Batman: The Long Halloween, and the 1970's era of comics are mentioned. IceDrake523 19 Wednesday 2005.

• Batman: The Man Who Laughs was not an inspiration to the story. The story was published in February of 2005, well into Batman Begins' production. It is also not inspiration due to the absence of the key character, The Joker

I watched the movie a dozen or so times on the DVD and I watch with the closed captioning on (because it helps me follow the movie, even though I can hear), and I notied a mistake from what the translator put. I have many friends that a deaf, so these are to you guys so you understand the movie at this scene.

At the time 1:58:36, Batman says "I can beat two of your pawns.", but the closed captioning says "I can't beat two of your pawns?".

--^BuGs^ 07:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I heard him say "I can beat two of your pawns", but it sounded more like "I can't beat two of your pawns". Maybe you should try the subtitles instead. Closed captions can foul up sometimes. I've noticed it myself. Scorpionman 03:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What ever batman says it's really hard to understand. I watched it at least a dozen more times and I still can't totally understand what he says. --^BuGs^ 03:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's meant to be incredulous - he knows Ra's is aware of his level of skill, so he's questioning that only two rank-and-file ninjas are being left to stop him - "I can't beat two of your pawns?"60.225.169.205 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I just saw the film, have to agree. Also in context [1] 70.181.65.95 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how it contains two direct quotes from the film. --Pentasyllabic 05:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

i dont think it's necessary...why dont we put quotes from movie section, and let the fans intepret itself whether it's a good quote morale or not. just a suggestion. HoneyBee 06:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed. Someone keeps adding this; it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. android79 07:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone added under the trivia section the differences between DC and Marvel. I don't think it should be in there. Anyone else on the subject? --^BuGs^ 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed, as I don't see this film as being canon to the rest of the Batman series, so advantages or disadvantages over DC would not make sense when seen alongside accepted Batman canon.70.106.36.130 14:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any information detailing when the sequels will be released? And how can Charles Roven, who was just the producer, deny that there was any definite villain in the next film? Scorpionman 03:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to sound to critical, but I think this section is not neutral (WP:NPOV). But I want to have a mini discussion before I place the Point of View Tag on the section. --^BuGs^ 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Soemone added the Rassberry Awards before I could, but I did add the Oscar data in for the movie. ^BuGs^ 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've completely reworked the article on Katie Holmes and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The section on the batmobile almost completely contradicts the information available on Batmobile. --Thenickdude 07:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the timeline in "Begins" is all over the place--the Depression, twenty years later, forty years later, today--which is intentional IMO (and deserves comment in the article) and does serve a valid purpose--but also belies the article's statement that the producers wanted everything in the movie (including the B-mobile) to be as "realistic as possible."--Buckboard 10:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some debate going on about the true identity of Ra's al Ghul - whether Ducard was him all along or whether he was a replacement. This excerpt (from memory) of the second meeting between 'Ducard' and Bruce Wayne may help matters:

WAYNE (confronted with the imposter): You're not Ra's. I watched him die.

DUCARD: But is Ra's al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?

WAYNE: Or cheap parlour tricks to conceal your real identity?

DUCARD: Surely a man who spends his evening scrambling on the rooftops of Gotham would not begrudge me duel identities.

It seems fairly clear to me that this indicates that Ducard was the real Ra's all along, and that the other two (the Ken Watanabe version and the party version) were just decoys. --Joseph Q Publique 23:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And in the official film guide book, there is an excerpt from the screenplay in which Liam Neeson's character is speaking and the script actually names him as Ra's al Ghul. Unless someone has conclusive proof that contradicts this, we need to go along with the idea that Henri Ducard was always the real Ra's al Ghul. I think some are changing this based on their own theories, which is original research and therefore verboten. --Bacteria 00:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the evidence seems to weigh in favour of Ducard being Ra's all along, I've made appropriate changes. --Joseph Q Publique 01:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following text from Batmobile: "Rumour has it that the filmmakers tried and failed to have the cars built in Hollywood, as all of the mechanics solicited apparently looked at the design and said that it couldn't be built. If the rumour is to be believed, the filmmakers showed the design to the head of a company in the UK, who immediately responded with "Okay, how many would you need?"

I didn't see this in any of the given sources, and I don't think that "Rumor has it" is good enough to be included here.

I removed most informations about the video game, leaving only general information. They are not necessary in this article, which is about the film, and are in the video game article anyway.--Ryusenshi 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave only a short paragraph about the sequel on this article. This page is about Batman Begins, not its sequel, isn't it? The rumours, news, etc, should be kept on the page Untitled Batman Begins sequel, not here! Do you agree? Same thing for the video game, by the way.--Ryusenshi 08:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Will there be an article about the deleted scenes with Harvey Dent put up?

Shouldnt the novelization be mentioned?

If by that the editor means "has flashbacks", they're wrong. And otherwise, apart from two flashback scenes it wasn't non-linear, was it? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but does this belong here? --Switch 11:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what he means is that we follow three linear plotlines:

8-year-old Bruce's discovery of the cave to the death of his parents;

22-year-old Bruce's quest for revenge frustrated to his confrontation with Falcone to his decision to leave Gotham; and

29-turning-30-year-old Bruce's meeting with Ducard leading to his return to Gotham leading to his becoming Batman.

While it's a more sophisticated structure than previous Bat-movies, I don't think that it qualifies as "non-linear." More like "multi-linear." --Chancemichaels 13:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I've removed the trivia section. It's all unsourced, and taken from IMDb in any case. IMDb doesn't cite its sources either, which puts all of it into the realm of triple hearsay or something similarly evil. If there's useful stuff there then it can be sourced and integrated into the article proper. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...I reverted that swiftly. I'd check IMDb again if I were you. Also, they may have just copied this page. Whatever the case, I was going to wait a bit before removing stuff like the hartnet rumor and I definitely object to removing it all outright. No offense, but did you ever look at the templete at the top? It says "too much", not "citeless". I did what I could to trim it, but I haven't heard any disputes as to the validity. Finally, remember the proper order: think, then edit, okay, cowboy? ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you're trying to be friendly, rather than condescending. The tag doesn't direct my actions, although its point is well taken. If those items of trivia are so well known as to be "common knowledge" then finding sources shouldn't be a problem. If they're so important as to be worth mentioning in an article then it ought to be possible to integrate them into the text. I strongly suggest that you pursue both courses of action. Tacked on lists of trivia don't become an encyclopedia. Mackensen (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you examine this article's failed FAC nomination, many opposers cited the mere existence of the trivia section. Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions make an [expletive deleted] out of you, dude. And it's really a little from column A, a little from column B. Now then, the whole "down with trivia!" thing? That's a closed-minded POV. Still, I suppose you're right about moving stuff. I'll do that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem very adept at the art of quotation; I suppose you think that you're funny. In the future, I'd like to ask that you treat other folks around here with a little more respect, whether they're six-month newbies or three-year ex-arbitrators who don't answer to the name "Sparky." Thanks much, Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what's with the too much trivia thing? If this article has too much, then batman and robin and the original batman movie articles have a humongous amount. If your worried about trivia, concentrate on those for now. They need more work than this article does. ColdFusion650

One has to start somewhere. I regret that I lack the ability to edit all Wikipedia articles simultaneously. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Multitasking often leads to mistakes, anyway, Big Mac. Ånyway, I like more of what I see in the article now. I'll look into the articles you mentioned now, Fuse. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While the article claims that the tracks are named after bat species, actual species are composed of two words: the genus (related group), and the species itself. My research on Wikipedia seems to indicate that the majority of tracks in fact allude to genera.

1. Vespertilio – the Latin word for Bat, as stated in article; also listed as the genus including the Frosted bats in the Vesper family article (Evening Bats, Vespertilionidae). Many of the following genera are also referenced in this article.

2. Eptesicus – genus, House bats

3. Myotis – genus, Mouse-eared bats

4. Barbastella – genus, Barbastelles or Barbastelle bats

5. Artibeus – Neotropical Fruit Bats, genus within the Leaf-nosed bats

6. Tadarida – genus within Free-tailed Bat family, assigned the same description

7. Macrotus – Big-eared Bats, genus within Leaf-nosed bats

8. Antrozous – possibly genus including the Pallid Bat; Vesper bat also names Antrozoinae as the subfamily of Vespertilionidae including “the pallid bats”

9. Nycteris – genus comprising the entire family Nycteridae

10. Molossus – genus, Velvety Free-tailed Bats

11. Corynorhinus – genus within "Microbat" suborder, judging by that article's image caption

12. Lasiurus – genus, Hairy-tailed bats, and actually an interesting genus article for once!

I would like for this information to be reviewed and made available somewhere for the benefit of my fellow curious soundtrack collectors (and Latin students), but this article doesn't seem to be the place - unless perhaps certain tracks were individually linked to relevant articles. -AndromedaRoach 07:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be overcomplicating it. Just make the correction from "species" to "genus" or "genera". Done and done. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 18:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does the information about Bruce's age (in the "Plot" section) come from? It's not sourced, and it's definitely incorrect. Much is made of the notion that Bruce is 24 during the course of the film. The "Casting" section has this to say -

Goyer's leaked first draft had him almost turning 30 on return to Gotham from Nepal, making him 22-23 when he is in Gotham for Joe Chill's hearing. However, it was changed to him ending the film at 25 years old to emphasize his youth.

Maybe that was the case at one point during pre-production, but if so they changed it back. Bruce is identified as turning 30 during the film (there is a large sign above the master staircase, seen before his birthday party, to that effect). That means all the references to Bruce's age must be corrected, working backwards.

By my count, given references in the film establishing the Chill hearing as being 14 years after the murder of Bruce's parents, and to Bruce having disappeared for seven years after that hearing, we can conslusively establish this chronology for him:

Bruce was 10 years old when his parents were murdered, 24 when Chill was himself murdered, and 29-turning-30 in the "present."

I'm going to correct the "Plot" section, but can anyone help with the background needed for the "Casting" section? --Chancemichaels 02:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Oh, crud. I just noticed an error in my math above. Whoops.

Okay, looking at it again, we have four ages for Bruce Wayne in the film - 29-turning-30 when he starts his career as Batman (established on-screen during his birthday party), 22 when the Chill hearing is held, (7 years elapses between the hearing and Bruce's return to Gotham), and finally 8 when his parents are killed (14 years before the hearing). That also works with "Bruce Wayne - Age 8" in the credits. --Chancemichaels 17:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I don't know; I think that he's in his mid-twenties. Nolan and Goyer probaly made a mistake in the chronogly or something....remember it's year one, he's in his early twenties then. (unsigned)

Beats me, but possibly he could be 25 or 26. It's most likely left up to the viewer to decide. Robin hasn't shown up yet, nor have most of the Rogues Gallery, etc. Believe what you want to believe; I think he;s around mid to late twenties. --Jonathan.Bruce Sept 14 2006, 03:38 (UTC)

It's Bruce's first year as Batman, but it's not an adaptation of Miller's "Year One" storyline. If you're the one who reverted my edits without comment, please refrain from doing so again. That's what this page is for, to hash out differences without editing the main article. --Chancemichaels 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Oh, no I didn't change your edits at all. Some fool, I guess. Anyways, I don't see what the fuss is about over an absurd topic. Like I said, believe what you want to believe, but if they put him at 30, then there won't be room in the future franchise for Robin, then Nightwing, then Tim Drake, if Batman will be over 40. --Jonathan.Bruce 7:47 Sept 14, 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it isn't "left up to the viewer to decide" or a matter of belief. It's explicitly stated in the art direction of the film - Bruce turns 30 the night that Ra's Al Ghul unleashes his toxin on Gotham City. An anonymous poster keeps reverting it without comment and without any justification whatsoever. I don't know why this person keeps trying to replace fact with his opinion, but if he would sign his name to those edits, we could discuss it with him.

It's important because we strive for accuracy here. Verified facts are given weight over speculation and wishful thinking. --Chancemichaels 14:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Well, it's you, just not logged in. Just like when you left these talk page comments. --Chris Griswold (☎☓)

And you did it again. Come on, Jonathan.Bruce. Leave it be. --Chancemichaels 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Yeah, they're right, BizzarioJonBruce. He goes from 22 to 30! Geez! Just give it up already. --Batmanaddict 06:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is not clever. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. You aren't fooling anybody. --Chancemichaels 20:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I added a {{unreferenced}} tag to the article because outside the sections that use the film as a direct source, the article does not cite its sources. I'd also like to reduce the plot summary so that we can pushm this article up the quality scale. I suggest we use X-Men: The Last Stand as an example because it is a similar film, and the article is classified as a Good Article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)