We're getting a little off-topic, but while there are inconsistencies, the whole idea with Nolan's movie not including previously used characters was so that they didn't start out by eliminating the world established by the other films. It could have been horrible (but it wasn't), and it could have bombed, and therefore there would have been no sequel talk. If that had been the case, while everything wouldn't have worked perfectly (and by the way, compare Batman to flashbacks in subsequent movies - it's not exactly the same), it would have fit somewhat into the chronology of the previous movies. Now the plan is to bring Joker and Two-Face into the next film, and re-make the Batman universe as a separate film franchise, but John is at least right in that, with some minor problems (and there are minor problems with continuity between the previous films), it could have fit as a prequel.

Now, back to the topic at hand, I'm curious as to why Daredevil and Hulk seem to polarize people so much. Everyone agrees Catwoman was pathetic, but people rarely seem to be on the fence about these two. Is one's prior knowledge of a character and preconceived notions about how a character should appear on screen enough to say a movie is bad? Batman has always been my favorite character, and Burton took a lot of liberties with the backstory, but I can still appreciate that the movie itself is good. I'm amazed at how few people can look at a movie and a film as separate incarnations of a character, rather than having to stay faithful to every aspect of the comic series. It's also odd because so many comic book series aren't consistent within themselves - as new spin-off books are established, and new writers are brought in, the world changes, but somehow that's OK, and changing a character for a movie isn't.

john,

unfortunately, the truth can only be attained when the facts are in order.

burton's "batman" establishes jack napier/the joker as the guy who killed bruce wayne's parents in a random mugging.

nolan's "batman begins" establishes joe chill as the guy who killed bruce wayne's parents on orders from the league of shadows.

in burton's "batman", the joker arrives after jim gordon is already the police commissioner.

in nolan's "batman begins", jim gordon is only a lieutenant when the joker shows up. this joker won't be joe chill because a) joe chill is dead and b) this joker was probably one of the escapees from arkham asylum. (by the way, arkham asylum is not even mentioned in burton's "batman".)

aside from the above points, "batman begins" is not a prequel to "batman" (1989) because in "batman begins", jim gordon creates the bat signal after he is inspired by a shadow that carmine falcone cast when shackled to a searchlight. if "batman begins" were a prequel to "batman", then gordon would already be using a bat signal at the beginning of "batman". instead, most of "batman" is about gordon and the rest of gotham city discovering that there is a man dressed as a bat in their midst--something that already happened in "batman begins"! moreover, the bat signal is introduced at the end of the movie--something that batman creates and gives to the police.

each movie was clearly inspired by decades of batman lore but explores batman's origins on its own terms. the only thing that they have in common is that they are "batman" movies.

eddie

p.s. ironically, you mentioned being bothered by "inconsistencies". you yourself noted discrepancies. you know why there are discrepancies? because the movies aren't in the same narrative continuum!!!

Eddie, the comments you now refer to were off-the-cuff remarks I made at the message board, not in my review. Nevertheless, I still stand by them. With only the few inconsistencies you've noted, which I consider inconsequential, "Batman Begins" figures neatly into the "Batman" movie scheme of things. Period. Now, go to bed and dream of better things. Like what to say about my upcoming review of "Pirates II." Or maybe it will be Tim who will be more displeased with me. I dunno.

John

- EXTERNAL LINK -

somewhere in the middle,

on 17 june--
john: "This new entry is supposed to be a continuation in the Warner Bros. movie series of Batman adventures..."

on 18 june--
john: "It even introduces the Joker at the end of the movie as a logical connection to Burton's first movie."

on 20 june--
john: "More important, it is an appropriate prequel to the other four movies that preceded it."

"So the new movie makes a nice tie-in with the movies that came before it but follow it in time."

""Batman Begins" IS meant to be a prequel, in the same way that the Episodes I-III of "Star Wars" were prequels to Episodes IV-VI."

I'm still waiting for Schumacher to apologize for everything else.

Chris,

Alas, YOU agree with me, but John doesn't.

John: "With only the few inconsistencies you've noted, which I consider inconsequential, "Batman Begins" figures neatly into the "Batman" movie scheme of things. Period."

The quoted passage is very troubling. "Aside from some discrepancies, "Batman Begins" fits perfectly into a pre-existing structure." That statement is an egregious logical fallacy.

It certainly matters what an artist says about his work when he's talking about FACTS. Nolan stating that "Batman Begins" has nothing to do with previous "Batman" adaptations is a statement of FACT. Schumacher stating that "Batman & Robin" is better than "2001" is a statement of OPINION. Opinions can be disregarded. (In the same vein, Peter Jackson telling us that he likes one version of "LOTR" over another is still a FACT because he's telling us a factual preference rather than a completely subjective evaluation.)

Eddie

P.S. By the way, Schumacher apologized for making "Batman & Robin" in the two-disc special edition's audio commentary. Your assumption of Schumacher's opinion of his own movies--in at least one case--was rather damn wrong, too.

Eddie,

John isn't even arguing with you. So give it a rest. You're right. It's not in the same continuity as the other Batman films, any more than Burton's Batman was in the same continuity as Batman (1966). If anything, "Batman Begins" is trying to wedge itself in (though not faithfully) to Frank Miller's Year One continuity from the comic books. Everyone agrees. Next point.

I don't get what you're saying about disagreeing with the directors. It's the art, not the artist (or the work, not the craftsman, if you prefer). I'm sure Joel Schumacher thinks he makes brilliant cinema; his opinion doesn't hold much sway with me. Y'know, "death of the author" and all that.

john,

as you and i both know, dictionaries are only rudimentary tools that provide definitions that are often too limiting or simply inadequate to apply to real-life uses of words. for example, most dictionaries define documentaries as "objective" examinations of issues, but there is no such thing as an objective documentary.

at any rate, you know full well that i love reading your reviews, but in the case of "batman begins", your opinion about the movie--positive or negative--is weakened by the un-true claim that the movie is a prequel to tim burton's "batman". factual errors basically invalidate subjective arguments that one may advance.

by the way, one can certainly consider schumacher's movies as unrelated to burton's (and nolan's). in "batman forever", there are several flashback sequences that are different from what was shown in burton's "batman" (and nolan's "batman begins"). even with the re-use of certain actors in certain roles, schumacher's movies are a complete departure from burton's.

eddie

p.s. if you're going to ignore what nolan says about his own movie (that it's not a prequel to any previous "batman" movie), then as i wrote in response to someone who didn't give a damn if peter jackson prefers the three-hour or four-hour cuts of the "lotr" cycle, the movie itself is worthless.

Tim, yeah, I think that any readers not familiar with us or the site should be aware that we're all good friends here, and any "picking on" is meant only in the spirit of friendly debate. It's just that we're critics; I mean, heck, what do you expect when you and I and Eddie and Chris and Jason and the rest get together? Love ain't got nuthin' to do with it.

John

John,

You should know me by now; I have no issues with not enjoying Pirates II as much as I did. I might tease you about it but I'm only kidding around with you because you're a friend to me. If anything, what the heck is with Eddie picking on you?

Tim ;)