Because they told us so. Not in the comic, but they told us so.

This is why comics are an acquired taste that I will never fully acquire.

I'm in no way saying that people have to like the movie, or even have to like this Batman.

I just wonder whether the filmmakers made a mistake, hewing so closely to a narrowcast Batman, when all other indicators say it was supposed to be a wide-appeal movie. (The explosions and crap also left me cold, and there's a whole separate argument to have about city-ness and lack thereof, so it failed on many axes, for me.)

But the idea that the Batman depicted is inconsistent with any usable (and not explicitly time-stamped) definition of Batman? That I reject.

I'm not sure I can parse this sentence to unpack your real meaning. But, like I said, the depicted specimen isn't usable for me, and I found him narrow, dull, blunted. He neither thrilled me nor made me empathize. If that's what he is like in the comics, then I guess there's a reason I don't read the current comics. Other people may like him like that, more power to them.

The commercial I am thinking of, P-C, is from some years back, where a guy on a football team is totally crushed in a tackle. They take him off to the sidelines, take off his helmet, and ask him, "How many fingers am I holding up?" He says: "Three."

Coach says, "Who am I?" Player says, "Coach."

Coach says, "Who are you?" Player gets this amazed, delighted look on his face: "I... am Batman!"

You know, I can't remember what the commercial was selling at all. I just remember that, after the product placement, there's the player, standing up, shouting, "To the Batmobile! Away!!"

Sean, do you think that Batman becomes more id and less superego as time goes by? I'm feeling the reverse.

His superego gets stronger, I think, *because* he's afraid of his id getting out. (And I'm speaking more about comics canon now, rather than the movie.) I think Batman believes that if he loosened his control one tiny bit, he would go nuclear. Think of the scene in Bruce Wayne: Murderer where he's in jail and beats the CRAP out of the 3 inmates who come to his cell. That wasn't a Bat-whooping; that was savage.

Or the JLA storyline (I can't remember the name) where most of the JLAers are split into their super identities and their civilian identities, and it turned out that Bruce, pure distilled Bruce, was unbelievably violent.

I think he believes that would happen if he ever let the superego have a nap. And it's probably true. But then, once he went nuclear, I think the id would burn off the anger and he'd no longer have the drive to be a vigilante.

I just wonder whether the filmmakers made a mistake, hewing so closely to a narrowcast Batman, when all other indicators say it was supposed to be a wide-appeal movie.

I think all indications are that the movie is having pretty wide appeal.

I just don't see any evidence in Batman Begins (to bring it back to *just* the movie) that Batman gets any joy out of scaring the crap out of Gotham's criminals.

"Where are you?!?!?"
"Here."

No possible purpose for that exchange, that I can see, other than the scary. He could have just taken him out.

It's good movie-making, good theater, et cetera. But the criminal was alone with Batman, in Batman's mind. He didn't know he had an audience. No reason to build up the fear there. Technically.

The only thing I had a real problem with was at the end, when Rachel says that Bruce is the mask. I felt that it was too early for that. I know the whole is Bruce the mask or Batman is an aspect that's been discussed and explored, but I thought it shouldn't be so apparent yet. I always felt that his identity got blurrier the long he was Batman. I didn't feel that by the end of the movie he'd gotten to that point.

If that's what he is like in the comics, then I guess there's a reason I don't read the current comics. Other people may like him like that, more power to them.

Which is perfectly reasonable, and is my relationship to the Spiderman character.

But it doesn't make him inconsistent, or require the existence of conflicting lurking motivations.

I just wonder whether the filmmakers made a mistake, hewing so closely to a narrowcast Batman, when all other indicators say it was supposed to be a wide-appeal movie.

Except that the movie is performing just fine, and getting both critical and public acclaim for its portrayal. So how is that a mistake?

I just remember that, after the product placement, there's the player, standing up, shouting, "To the Batmobile! Away!!"

I remember that commercial. I remember laughing like a loon at that commercial. It was great.

No reason to build up the fear there. Technically.

How are you going to instill fear in criminals without instilling fear in criminals?

I'm not saying that Batman isn't trying very hard to be scary. It's the point of the movie. I'm saying it's a grim reality for him that he has to do so, not a pleasure or an ego-stroke.

Saturday I saw the movie with somene who'd never read the comic books at all and her only knowledge of Batman came from the previous movies and she loved it. She had a few questions, but nothing major.

We haven't discussed it extensively but she loved the movie enough to want to see it again.