Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/18/2006 10:06:17 PM EDT
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Now the question: What do you guys think about the statement Gary Oldman's character made at the end of the movie? I didn't care for it. It was out of place and had nothing to do with the movie. It seems like somebody figured they had to throw it in just to make a political statement.

And you?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:08:48 PM EDT
Yeah, that crap at the end of the movie really annoyed me. F*&^%#@ libtards. Rest of the movie was awesome though.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:15:23 PM EDT
Indeed.

That one line just stuck out like it didn't belong. Makes him sound stupid.

I guess that line rings true with the sheeple.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:16:47 PM EDT
I've never seen the movie. What was the gist of the statement?

-K
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:17:14 PM EDT
Should we tell him, fellas?
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 10:20:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 5:47:26 AM EDT
Bump for the day crew.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:22:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MrsGloftoe:
So as not to spoil it...

www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/quotes

Search for 'escalation'.



Thanks for the hint. I couldn't, for the life of me, remember what it was. I saw the movie in the theatre and rented it when it came out.

I took it with a grain of salt, but there is a grain of truth to it also. Hell, even Sheriff Taylor would wear a gun now. And Barney would be retired and his replacement would have a semiauto, not a revolver with one in the shirt pocket.

It's also the kind of comment you would get from someone who is ignorant of the situation. It's usually the perps who escalate the arms race and the cops are playing catchup. The comment really didn't bother me at all. A fictional line in a fictional movie.

But what the hell do I know?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:26:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:

Thanks for the hint. I couldn't, for the life of me, remember what it was. I saw the movie in the theatre and rented it when it came out.

I took it with a grain of salt, but there is a grain of truth to it also. Hell, even Sheriff Taylor would wear a gun now. And Barney would be retired and his replacement would have a semiauto, not a revolver with one in the shirt pocket.

It's also the kind of comment you would get from someone who is ignorant of the situation. It's usually the perps who escalate the arms race and the cops are playing catchup. The comment really didn't bother me at all. A fictional line in a fictional movie.

But what the hell do I know?




Agreed on all counts. I couldn't remember it, either.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:30:24 AM EDT
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:35:18 AM EDT
Eh, it's not that bad of a line. I don't really see any gun hate to it. He basically said, it's getting worse, what are you going to do? and they solidify a step between that movie and the ones made before it.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:36:30 AM EDT
I've never seen the movie, I gave up on hollyweird a long time ago, so I'm guessing the line is something like "it's all Trees fault" or "Tree is hitler".
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:37:51 AM EDT
I think the quote was more to build up the the announcement of 'the joker' than anything else.

I was more upset that batman's identity was already reveealed to his bimbo girlfriend. What, it's one movie and alreay you have to tell everybody who batman is?
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:39:40 AM EDT
Daytona, I see it. The statement Oldman's character said is the exact same thing gun grabbers say to push their agenda. They have some wishy washy idea that if the general population has a very limited selection, or NO weapons, then criminals will put theirs down and use less deadly means of plying their trade.

I dug the movie, but yeah, that last dialog chapped my ass.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:41:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.



The batman comics are more "true to life" than most. It's always been a darker series with only brief journeys into the silly shit.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 7:02:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.



The batman comics are more "true to life" than most. It's always been a darker series with only brief journeys into the silly shit.



Anyone get annoyed by the assistant DA's character? Talk about judgemental liberals.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:20:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Daytona955i:
Eh, it's not that bad of a line. I don't really see any gun hate to it. He basically said, it's getting worse, what are you going to do? and they solidify a step between that movie and the ones made before it.


I just didn't see the connection to the movie. It came out of nowhere right at the end. It's not like there was some big gun battle or something and Oldham's character was mulling over the fallout.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:30:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



The Joe Chill killer story is the storyline from the Comics. Joker's origins were never fully explained. I think Burton's Batman was the first appearance of the Joker kills Bruce's parents story.


Batman's always been anti-gun. The guy's a whackjob who refuses to use guns himself. In Frank Miller's Dark Knight saga, he retires because he resorted to using a gun when a fight went bad.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:30:10 AM EDT
I don't see what you are getting so worked up over. It is only a movie. I don't see anythng bad with that statement. It does not stick out like the movie Day After Tomorrow did as being anti. Or Even the Villiage.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:31:23 AM EDT
I didn't take the line personally.
Just a movie script like the last Star Wars anti-gun and "Bush" comparison.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:34:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



The Joe Chill killer story is the storyline from the Comics. Joker's origins were never fully explained. I think Burton's Batman was the first appearance of the Joker kills Bruce's parents story.


Batman's always been anti-gun. The guy's a whackjob who refuses to use guns himself. In Frank Miller's Dark Knight saga, he retires because he resorted to using a gun when a fight went bad.



Not really. In the original back in the day batman comic, he carried a revolver and killed people.

In 1964's Detective Comics #327, where batman got his black costume and yellow oval look, he briefly carried a gun.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:38:26 AM EDT
Great movie.

Definitely the best Batman ever.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:45:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



Batman Begins is the start of a NEW story arc for Batman movies. The next BM movie will have the Joker as the villian. I thought the same thing when I first saw the movie. I thought it was a tie in to the '90 movie, but it was actually a lead in to the next new movie.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:46:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:
Great movie.

Definitely the best Batman ever.



+1. And Gary Oldman was awesome as Commissioner Gordon.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:46:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



The Joe Chill killer story is the storyline from the Comics. Joker's origins were never fully explained. I think Burton's Batman was the first appearance of the Joker kills Bruce's parents story.


Batman's always been anti-gun. The guy's a whackjob who refuses to use guns himself. In Frank Miller's Dark Knight saga, he retires because he resorted to using a gun when a fight went bad.



Not really. In the original back in the day batman comic, he carried a revolver and killed people.

In 1964's Detective Comics #327, where batman got his black costume and yellow oval look, he briefly carried a gun.



I don't thinks so, unless there was a batman re-write in the 70's. I have one of the earlier comics that has the tag line saying The only man Batman killed or some such. Even when he did use a gun, he never killed anyone with it. Of course it turns out that he didn't kill anyone in this comic either.
He was very anti gun for personal use, not anti gun as a political agenda. He would not use them at all because his parents were killed with one.
He eventually picks one up again because he doesn't think he can compete, but that only lasted for a few issues.
The Frank miller one where he quits, is an off shoot one far into the future, and he picks up the cape again anyway, after someone convinces him, he hasn't lost his touch yet.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:47:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



Batman Begins is the start of a NEW story arc for Batman movies. The next BM movie will have the Joker as the villian. I thought the same thing when I first saw the movie. I thought it was a tie in to the '90 movie, but it was actually a lead in to the next new movie.



Batman Begins is the start of the proper]/b] story for batman. Jack Napier NEVER killed Bruce's parents in any of the comics.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:47:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By tyman:
Great movie.

Definitely the best Batman ever.



+1. And Gary Oldman was awesome as Commissioner Gordon.



It was wierd seeing Gordon as a nice guy.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:48:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Andrewh:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



The Joe Chill killer story is the storyline from the Comics. Joker's origins were never fully explained. I think Burton's Batman was the first appearance of the Joker kills Bruce's parents story.


Batman's always been anti-gun. The guy's a whackjob who refuses to use guns himself. In Frank Miller's Dark Knight saga, he retires because he resorted to using a gun when a fight went bad.



Not really. In the original back in the day batman comic, he carried a revolver and killed people.

In 1964's Detective Comics #327, where batman got his black costume and yellow oval look, he briefly carried a gun.



I don't thinks so, unless there was a batman re-write in the 70's. I have one of the earlier comics that has the tag line saying The only man Batman killed or some such. Even when he did use a gun, he never killed anyone with it. Of course it turns out that he didn't kill anyone in this comic either.
He was very anti gun for personal use, not anti gun as a political agenda. He would not use them at all because his parents were killed with one.
He eventually picks one up again because he doesn't think he can compete, but that only lasted for a few issues.
The Frank miller one where he quits, is an off shoot one far into the future, and he picks up the cape again anyway, after someone convinces him, he hasn't lost his touch yet.



Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:49:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Now the question: What do you guys think about the statement Gary Oldman's character made at the end of the movie? I didn't care for it. It was out of place and had nothing to do with the movie. It seems like somebody figured they had to throw it in just to make a political statement.

And you?



I loved the movie, but that line was definitely a plug for liberalism and out of place.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:52:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.

Now the question: What do you guys think about the statement Gary Oldman's character made at the end of the movie? I didn't care for it. It was out of place and had nothing to do with the movie. It seems like somebody figured they had to throw it in just to make a political statement.

And you?



I loved the movie, but that line was definitely a plug for liberalism and out of place.



Actually, it wasnt, you are just reading too much into it. Its only a movie.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:52:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:

Originally Posted By tyman:
Great movie.

Definitely the best Batman ever.



+1. And Gary Oldman was awesome as Commissioner Gordon.



I thought he was much better as DEA agent Stansfield in "The Professional'... easily on of my all time favorite lunatic bad guys (after Frank Booth).
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 9:56:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Now the question: What do you guys think about the statement Gary Oldman's character made at the end of the movie? I didn't care for it. It was out of place and had nothing to do with the movie. It seems like somebody figured they had to throw it in just to make a political statement.


I loved the movie, but that line was definitely a plug for liberalism and out of place.


Actually, it wasnt, you are just reading too much into it. Its only a movie.


Actually, it came out of the blue and didn't appear to be related to anything that was happening in the movie. If anything, it was BATMAN who was using massive firepower via his new "Batmobile."

But that was missles. The gun/cop killer bullet comment seemed like it was shoehorned into the end of the movie just to make a statement.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:00:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By rifleman2000:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
Now the question: What do you guys think about the statement Gary Oldman's character made at the end of the movie? I didn't care for it. It was out of place and had nothing to do with the movie. It seems like somebody figured they had to throw it in just to make a political statement.


I loved the movie, but that line was definitely a plug for liberalism and out of place.


Actually, it wasnt, you are just reading too much into it. Its only a movie.


Actually, it came out of the blue and didn't appear to be related to anything that was happening in the movie. If anything, it was BATMAN who was using massive firepower via his new "Batmobile."

But that was missles. The gun/cop killer bullet comment seemed like it was shoehorned into the end of the movie just to make a statement.



.......................not so much
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:01:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/19/2006 10:04:04 AM EDT by LoginName]

Originally Posted By Andrewh:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:

Originally Posted By mmx1:

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Here's what I don't get...

In the 1st Batman (with Michael Keaton), we find out that it was the person (Jack Napier), whom would later
become the Joker, is the one who killed Bruce Waynes parents.

In Batman Begins, it is an entirely different person who kills the Waynes and is later killed himself while leaving the courtroom. In the final scene of Batman Begins, Gordon informs Batman of a new criminal making the rounds (which is obviously the Joker).



The Joe Chill killer story is the storyline from the Comics. Joker's origins were never fully explained. I think Burton's Batman was the first appearance of the Joker kills Bruce's parents story.


Batman's always been anti-gun. The guy's a whackjob who refuses to use guns himself. In Frank Miller's Dark Knight saga, he retires because he resorted to using a gun when a fight went bad.



Not really. In the original back in the day batman comic, he carried a revolver and killed people.

In 1964's Detective Comics #327, where batman got his black costume and yellow oval look, he briefly carried a gun.



I don't thinks so, unless there was a batman re-write in the 70's. I have one of the earlier comics that has the tag line saying The only man Batman killed or some such. Even when he did use a gun, he never killed anyone with it. Of course it turns out that he didn't kill anyone in this comic either.
He was very anti gun for personal use, not anti gun as a political agenda. He would not use them at all because his parents were killed with one.
He eventually picks one up again because he doesn't think he can compete, but that only lasted for a few issues.
The Frank miller one where he quits, is an off shoot one far into the future, and he picks up the cape again anyway, after someone convinces him, he hasn't lost his touch yet.



He means the original Batman comic from wayyyyy back.

www.dccomics.com/features/bmtch/1.htm

"So Fox seems to have started the concept of Batman's ever expanding arsenal, and he also set Batman against the supernatural in this two-issue story. The villain was the Monk, who turned out to be a vampire, so Batman shot the bloodsucker and his sultry concubine with silver bullets. The business with guns was troublesome, and after one more recurrence DC's editorial staff decided to disarm Batman as far as deadly weapons were concerned, lest youthful fans take arms against a sea of troubles."


However, at one point Batman was a shill for the Brady Campaign...

www.nrapublications.org/archives/fabric.asp

"Seduction of the Gun"

In support of the proposal, Gov. Wilder sent every legislator a copy of a recent issue of Batman comics, which apparently had been written in order to assist the anti-gun cause in Virginia. In the Batman episode, Virginia was portrayed as the main gun-running state in the east. One character complained that tough gun laws had not been enacted “because some fat white bastard wants to play with his guns on a weekend.”

The writers made Batman himself endorse total gun prohibition, claiming that violence “will end when we decide that we don’t want guns in our houses, in our neighborhoods, in our schools, in our hands. It will end when we decide to get rid of the guns we have and not get more.”

According to Batman, non-Virginians traveled to Virginia, purchased multiple handguns, and then took them back to Gotham City to sell on the black market. Ever since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which banned handgun purchases outside one’s state of residence), such purchases were federal felonies, with especially strict penalties for trafficking of multiple handguns.

Besides the comic book, the other major evidence used to portray Virginia as the main source of New York City crime guns was Project Lead, a BATF firearms tracing operation. According to anti-gun advocates, Project Lead showed that 41 percent of New York crime guns came from Virginia."




Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:07:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:08:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:21:54 AM EDT
although I see how the line could be taken as anti-gun, I didn't see it that way.
it was more a lead up to how in the Batman universe the kind of criminals batman deals with are super criminals
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:28:43 AM EDT
My main peev from the movie is this...how much of the human body is composed of water? Hmmmm.


ByteTheBullet (-:
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:39:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GerberSchwintz:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:
And a statement:

First the statement: I really like how they approached this movie. They stayed away from the comic-book aspect of things and kinda stayed truer to life. Not bad. Not bad at all.



The batman comics are more "true to life" than most. It's always been a darker series with only brief journeys into the silly shit.



Anyone get annoyed by the assistant DA's character? Talk about judgemental liberals.



I got annoyed by her, plus I can't stand Katie Holmes. I found myself agreeing with Ra's Al Ghul more than I did with her.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:42:13 AM EDT
Actually Batman shot and killed an adversay in the first Batman titled comic, the Batpistol was since disavowed in later reboots of the franchise.

I just find it hysterical, they won't let him have a small device to hurl lead at reasonable velocities, however they will let him throw explosive, incendiary, pyrotechnic and a wide variety of other inherantly dangerous devices.

Remember folks, Batman may be anti-gun but he's pro-grenade!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:42:41 AM EDT
Katie is not coming back for the sequel. I thought her character was a waste of time.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 10:42:59 AM EDT
Again, despite my beef, I thought this was by far the best Batman movie.

Rather than force the audience to assume Batman really was mystical, the movie showed exactly how Batman began and that it was simply his will augmented by some military tech that never got off the ground that gave him his abilities.

Very well done.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:21:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
although I see how the line could be taken as anti-gun, I didn't see it that way.
it was more a lead up to how in the Batman universe the kind of criminals batman deals with are super criminals



Exactly. People are getting paranoid, seeing anti-gun stuff where none exists.
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:23:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Katana16j:
Actually Batman shot and killed an adversay in the first Batman titled comic, the Batpistol was since disavowed in later reboots of the franchise.

I just find it hysterical, they won't let him have a small device to hurl lead at reasonable velocities, however they will let him throw explosive, incendiary, pyrotechnic and a wide variety of other inherantly dangerous devices.

Remember folks, Batman may be anti-gun but he's pro-grenade!



I knew he had to be carrying a Glock somewhere under that cape!
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 11:32:54 AM EDT
what i liked about the movie was the batmobile. which was a custom built thing that acutally worked. i think they spent around 500,000 $ to make it..

Link Posted: 2/19/2006 12:06:43 PM EDT
Does everything have to have a meaning other than what its being used for in a movie? Damn
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 2:36:25 PM EDT
The line did seem od but the simple fact we are under attack from all corners and therefore people see things in movie lines that may or may not be there

that said the movie was excellent and by far the best batman ever
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 3:23:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ByteTheBullet:
My main peev from the movie is this...how much of the human body is composed of water? Hmmmm.


ByteTheBullet (-:



Let's try this...What did the machine boil into a gas?


ByteTheBullet (-:
Link Posted: 2/19/2006 6:45:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ByteTheBullet:

Originally Posted By ByteTheBullet:
My main peev from the movie is this...how much of the human body is composed of water? Hmmmm.


ByteTheBullet (-:



Let's try this...What did the machine boil into a gas?


ByteTheBullet (-:



Hey, hey, suspension of disbelief.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 7:12:17 AM EDT
As I said unless I missed another rewrite in the 70's, but it appears to have been even further back than that. So I doubt in the 60's he had a gun either.
Also killing a vampire doesn't really count as killing someone, since they are undead already.
Link Posted: 2/20/2006 8:47:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/20/2006 8:48:57 AM EDT by twonami]

Originally Posted By ByteTheBullet:

Originally Posted By ByteTheBullet:
My main peev from the movie is this...how much of the human body is composed of water? Hmmmm.


ByteTheBullet (-:



Let's try this...What did the machine boil into a gas?


ByteTheBullet (-:


we got it the first time but we can do a logic disconnect if the story is good enough, besides that part of the movie has been beaten to death ina previous thread. Kinda like Glocks and kabooms.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top