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.

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

Ha! Oh yeah, I think I remember that commercial.

"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.

Gris, that's so what I was thinking of as well. I think there's a fine line between his getting enjoyment out of being scary and wanting to be scary, though.

That was still wicked cool, anyway.

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

Especially if you're not killing the crap out of them. (Watching the Tom Jane Punisher movie, I kept saying, "DAMN! He's not just killing them, he's killing the living crap out of them. ")

I'd love to forward this entire conversation to the woman who complained about Batman Begins in the latest Ebert Answer Man column:

Q. I just saw "Batman Begins" and thought it was OK. There were children at the show, however, and I felt sorry for them because the movie contained nothing that might appeal to 8 years and younger. Why have filmmakers decided to ignore young audiences? Aren't comic books at heart really meant for children?

I'm not saying the movie should have catered to young minds exclusively, but I find it more than a little cruel that the film offers nothing to the age group that made "Batman" a success in the first place. What would the young Roger Ebert have thought of the movie? I think the 8-year-old me would have found it visually confusing and disturbing.

A. Trying to appeal to every possible age group is one of Hollywood's fatal errors. Batman is the darkest of the superheroes, and the recent graphic novels about his life have been intended for teenagers and adults.

One of the reasons the movie is so good is because it deals with the darker side of the character's early life and isn't dumbed down with too many special effects or the clowning of the villains. The young Roger Ebert would, of course, have agreed.

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.

Really? I think if you build up fear in the criminal, then he tells 2 friends, and they tell 2 friends....

Seriously. Batman has to create the I Am The Night (and I Will Fuck You UP, Motherfucker) image.

t edit Or, what ita said.

However, I still saw no enjoyment of his little hide-and-seek "Here" to the criminal. He wasn't being scary because he *could,* as I see it; he was being scary because it was effective for what he needed to do.

Batman is VERY practical and utilitarian. He's not theatrical; at least, not for the sake of being theatrical. Yes, the whole Bat thing, the cape, etc., *is* dramatic, and Bruce knows it. But he's not doing it to be all theatrical and faaaaabulous; he's doing it because he knows a little theatricality will leave an impression. And if he does it right, that impression is Don't Fuck With The Bat.

Teppy, will you marry me?

If he wants to instill fear in criminals, scaring the bejesus out of one thug with a "boo" and somewhat opening his defenses in the process is not the way to go, I'd say. ESPECIALLY since the thug probably got a better look at him that way. The flying around the ceiling, always just out of site, striking without ever being quite seen is the way he should go, it builds up a mysterious what-the-hell fear thing in large groups of thugs, rather than exposing him immediately as a ninja man in a really cool halloween costume.

I did love the scene, don't get me wrong. But you have to enjoy the reaction if you jump out at somebody and yell "boo" or else why do it? It doesn't really inspire true fear, just startlement.