67 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

I would've been much more into Wayne teaching himself science and criminology and biology and martial arts and law etc. etc. all through his formative years, while Alfred watched helplessly. Driven, that's Wayne/Batman.

It's also kind of unbelievable. Batman's my favorite character ever, but I've always had to admit that his origin wasn't one of the strongest points (beyond the death of the Waynes, that is). But we've never really been given a full-out origin story in the comics anyway, so it's not like that mattered, but I've always found it somewhat unbelievable that good ol' 12-year-old Bruce knew he wanted to be a crimefighter right after his parents died. It should take a bit of a journey to get there. Heck, it should take a hell of a journey to get there. BEGINS and MASK OF THE PHANTASM have my two favorite takes on the origin of Batman.

But anyway, the overly grim, psychotic, overly anti-social Batman has always bored me. Entirely unapproachable and unlikeable. My Batman is noble and heroic, taking up a selfless crusade to help others, has some sense of humor, and enjoys being Bruce Wayne as well as being Batman (not to say that there isn't tension there between the two, but they're both two facets of the same man). I've never liked Batman as an antihero... I've always liked him as a hero. A dark one, sure, but a hero nonetheless.

[blueman]

Ah. Fair enough. And, I wasn't thinking 12 year old Wayne goes "I'll fight crime!" That epiphany comes later, as a fully-formed and quite powerful but also bored young man IIRC. As a youngster he's just blindly driven, anti-social, burying his loss in a mountain of "stuff." No real direction, just a natural reaction to the murder of his parents. If he didn't have tons of money and Alfred taking care of him, he'd likely be a street youth, and top turk at that.

Your description of Wayne/Batman reminds me of another darkish hero dude, now who could that be...?

[Jack Spang]

I think BB is the better reboot because there was a decent amount of focus on Bruce Wayne's background history. We didn't get this with Bond. A greater amount of character movement was devoted to Bruce Wayne than Bond. It was refreshing to see more of Bond's character in CR - more than we've ever seen in a Bond film but they could have done more like they did with Wayne. It would be nice to see some of Bond's background history in Bond 22 like a flashback clip of his parents being killed in the climbing accident. Also, M, Tanner, Villiers or whoever, discussing Bond's psyche like how Villers did on the website when he read from Bond's file.

Edited by Jack Spang, 02 June 2007 - 02:02 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

But CASINO ROYALE is NOT a reboot film. Take out the black and white opening pre titles and it's a standard Bond film. In fact, ROYALE's pre-title sequence could have been attached to any Bond film. That portion of it is set in the past. Why else was it shot in black and white.

A new actor and a fresh approach doesn't automatically imply "reboot", "rebirth" or whatever "2.0 / Begins Again / O" rubbish the pedantic fans are bleating on about.

[HawkEye007]

Not to split hairs, but I thought that Casino Royale was a reboot film? The whole premise of Bond getting his 2 kills in the PTS and then get his 00 meant that this is a new start for the character. Heck, CR was often called Bond Begins on this website. I think the Bond franchise needed a fresh start, as did the Batman franchise. It was a new actor and a fresh approach, but so many things in the run up to the release as well as the film just scream reboot. Don't quote me on it, but I seem to recall the Brocolli family even acknowlegding that this was a reboot.

[Zorin Industries]

Not to split hairs, but I thought that Casino Royale was a reboot film? The whole premise of Bond getting his 2 kills in the PTS and then get his 00 meant that this is a new start for the character. Heck, CR was often called Bond Begins on this website.

Just because CASINO ROYALE was called "Bond Begins" on this website doesn't mean it was a reboot film by any stretch. I am not including you in this HawkEye007, but far too many fans have obsessed over ROYALE being a "revamp / reboot" when - to be fair - it was hardly that. Different doesn't imply "reboot".

[HawkEye007]

CR seems like a reboot to me, but its just personal opinion in my case. I definitely don't obsess over it however. Its a great Bond movie, no matter how you look at, and that is something most of us can agree on!

[Jack Spang]

"CR as an actionmovie is probably impressive although the final part is too much and took away the argument that this would be a different Bond. No once more action over character development."

Yeah, it's a shame Eon have to go so overboard with the action. CR had one big action scene to many. This whole scene involving the building sinking in Venice (it wasn't a very exciting scene anyway) shouldn't have been there. Then the action could have been spread out a bit more. They would have had more room to breath and could have showcased more of Bond's character and shown a bit of his background history. I still feel that Eon are selling themselves short. They could make more of a drama/thriller that would appeal to even more people without alienating the action junkies.

Edited by Jack Spang, 05 June 2007 - 12:07 AM.