Batman Begins: Let's be real for a second

[ToM]

The rubber Batman costume is important to Warner Brothers. You see, the fact of this matter is Warners has so much invested in their theme park attractions utilizing this character that they're intensely disinclined to modify his look on film. You know, lest it subvert the image content of the Six Flags stuff. It doesn't matter how primative the character seems compared to all the other advances in both design work, even the technology involved with the design of other characters adapted from comics since '89. Batman will "forever" be locked in rubber.

Actually, I was told by someone not long ago (and take this for possibly being just hearsay) that WB was even dictating to DC Comics for a while exactly how long Batman's "ears" could be in the comics. Image is everything.

When you see somebody state on any given talkback that "the rubber costume is insignificant" remind them that it *is* important if that image is *important* to Warner Brothers. This costume matters.

That being said, Batman Begins looks incredible primitive to me, absolutely retro (as in retro-exciting). After ten years, he's still the Michelin-Man, all made out of old rubber tires. Any talk of this being "a new vision" is just that, talk.

To make matters worse, atop the "retro Batman" is the problem of the copy and paste school of scripting this movie has been treated to.

1. Spider-Man sees Parker "become Spider-Man" nearly one hour into the running time of the '02 film.

Batman Begins sees Wayne "become" Batman at this same mark.

Spider-Man first emerges when he chases a crook's car down,swinging through the city after nearly slamming into walls and scaffolding. He lands on the hood, slamming his fist down.

Batman chases a crook's car down, swinging through the city after nearly slamming into walls and scaffolding. He lands on the hood, slamming his fist down.

Spider-Man then pursues the crook into a time-worn building, hanging upside down behind him while said baddie spins around wielding his gun, calling out to his pursuer.

Batman then pursues the crook into a time-worn building, hanging upside down behind him while said baddie spins around wielding his gun, calling out to his pursuer.

Spider-Man, in the end, decides he cannot be with the woman he's loved since childhood, since he has a duty to fight crime. He rejects her in a tearful scene.

Batman, in the end, decides he cannot be with the woman he's loved since childhood, since he has a duty to fight crime. He rejects her in a tearful scene.

Hey, in Spider-Man 2 our hero battles to save an elevated train, which ends up being derailed!

Hey, in Batman Begins our hero battles to save an elevated train, which ends up being derailed!

What'a coincidence Goyer!

Oh, them we have that awful Hulk movie seemingly being used as a template!

In "Hulk" we revisit Bruce Banner's unhappy childhood in flashbacks. We find that the love of his life and he were children together.

In "Batman Begins" we revisit Bruce Wayne's unhappy childhood in flashbacks. We find that the love of his life and he were children together.

Hulk sees Bruce Banner fighting to keep his laboratories secure from a corporate takeover.

Batman Begins sees Bruce *Wayne* fighting to keep his companey laboratories secure from a corporate takeover.

In Hulk Bruce Banner spends much of the first hour going over this and that in the lab with technicians.

In Batman Begins Bruce *Wayne* spends much of the first hour going over this and that in the lab with technicians.

Batman ends up with almost *precisely* the same amount of screen time in Batman Begins as The Hulk did in his own feature (suggesting the whole template).

Oh, and there's endless streams of such things happening here.

Batman Begins *hardly* feels like some fresh take on the character. It feels like been there done that sixteen years ago, and everything from the last four all over again. And the reason it feels that way is because....that's exactly what it is. So, when people start castigating you for being critical of this film "before you see it", the real truth is, much of what can be said against it is entirely valid. And that's because you *have* already seen it.

ToM

[admin]

Yep, DC is shamelessly trying to copy Marvel's successful formula. That's why I'm not so hyped about Begins, it doesn't feel fresh and new.

[yas3r]

Well...I like your research...

but to be contrary - DC's 89 Batman film set a dark broody tone that has now become standard in comic book movies.

most superhero origin stories are the same as well as structure of a blockbuster action movie.

...there ARE only so many ways to skin a cat...

(also i get concerned when i see two first posters propogating each other like this-are you sure YOU dont have a secret identity here too?)

[The Xenos]

So you've seen the new Batman film and while wathcing it on screen you were suddenly remidned of all the Marvel films. I think you have become too hooked on those Marvel films. I don't remember Spidery going to Tibet to study under someone who will eventually become his enemy.

"In Batman Begins Bruce *Wayne* spends much of the first hour going over this and that in the lab with technicians."

The whole corperate thing in Hulk? He was a scientist, not a buisness man. Whole different story. I have not heard anything like this. Where did you get this? If anything Wayne's working on stuff in the cave.

" Batman ends up with almost *precisely* the same amount of screen time in Batman Begins as The Hulk did in his own feature (suggesting the whole template)."

Well, I think that hurt the Hulk movie, as much as I liked it. Here I think it will only help the Batman movie. Big difference between Hulk and Batman.

" In "Batman Begins" we revisit Bruce Wayne's unhappy childhood in flashbacks. We find that the love of his life and he were children together."

I'll give you that. I think the one thing I'll hate is this tacked on love story and invented character. Then again isn't that in a lot of movies, Hollywood or not? Plus Bruce Wayne had an unhappy childhood long before Hulk did. PLus if you're doing the origin of Batman, you *#$(ing need to talk about his childhood. Don't be so damn anal.

" Hey, in Batman Begins our hero battles to save an elevated train, which ends up being derailed!"

Is that what happens? Did you read the script or you jsut assmuing. I thought he was cahsing someone on it and it wasn't run away. I do admit it is a bit too similar. Then agian Gotham can ahve a train like that where everyone who's been to NYC knows they don't, so point for Batman.

I relaly think you were looking too much for similarities. If you do this during the film, go in with this agenda, of course you're not going to like it. So quit thinking aobut other movies. Go see this one. After you see it, then draw comparisons.

Of course I could start bitching, Fantastic FOur is ripping off Hellboy when the Thing slams a car! Of course, if you look into it you'll see it was in the script before Hellboy shot and even Del Toro admits that. He also said that The Thing has been doing that long before Hellboy was a glimmer in Mignola's eyes.

I think Batman will actually be an atypical superhero movie. No superpowers, just a street vigilante in a city of crime and madmen.

-Xenos

[The Xenos]

Also I do agree I don't care for the rubber looking suit. Yet at the same time I know I've heard it's based on real body armor. They're going for realism here as Batman is one of the most realistic superheros around. Wayne is not stupid. He's going to get shot at. He wants Body armor to protect himself. With a supply of tech at his compnay that he could writer off if it suddenly disapeared, I can't blame him for getting a high tech suit.

-Xenos

[Essex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>The rubber Batman costume is important to Warner Brothers. You see, the fact of this matter is Warners has so much invested in their theme park attractions utilizing this character that they're intensely disinclined to modify his look on film. You know, lest it subvert the image content of the Six Flags stuff. It doesn't matter how primative the character seems compared to...blah blah blah....
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This is the most ridiculous topic I've ever seen here, and there have been many that have made me sick. If Batman Begins is copying any format of Marvel's, it's that one where they make good movies that stick closely to the source material. What a unique concept! Batman's source material is some of the oldest in comics and has, over the years, always been a trend-setter and far ahead of its time. Nearly every major revolution in comics started with Batman squarely in the centre. This even extends to the first Batman film. Despite what any whining fans think of the movie now, we would not have the comic movies we do today if not for Batman in 1989.

The Batman Begins script would have been completed long before Spider-Man 2 came out. I highly doubt it was extensively rewritten just because everybody knows an elevated train sequence is the true secret to box office success. http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/rolleyes.gif

I'm sorry, but have you seen the movie? You sure seem to believe you have. You talk about advances in costume design, yet you haven't even seen how Batman will move (it is already clear he is much more flexible in this costume). You talk about key plot points but you have no idea how they will play out in the final cut. Don't even get me started on your apparent conspiracy thoery regarding the rubber costume.

It really blows my mind that there are actually people like you out there who spend so much time considering worthless details like this. Leave it to a comic fanboy to take one of the most promising comic movies of the decade and tear it apart without any basis in reality. I guess those last words there really sum up your entire position: "no basis in reality."

------------------
"That which does not kill us...makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild, Aeon Flux

[ToM]

I can fully appreciate a concern that two new people may in fact be one in the same given the number of "plants" working smear operations it seems these days. But I offer as evidence that I'm not two people the fact that I went and posted this also at Superherohype. See, I thought after seeing such little activity here that these boards were largely vacant. And went elsewhere to find conversation over these matters.

"If Batman Begins is copying any format of Marvel's, it's that one where they make good movies that stick closely to the source material. What a unique concept!"

Oh, they do that, do they? I guess you didn't see Catwoman (famously called CINO for a reason) *or* Constantine (another flop). Hey, Warner Brothers managed that Birds of Prey series, *anything* from that comic turn up on screen? And Smallville....

Batman plans out a murder suicide in this movie. Nothing like retaining character integrity, right?

"This even extends to the first Batman film. Despite what any whining fans think of the movie now, we would not have the comic movies we do today if not for Batman in 1989. "

"Leave it to a comic fanboy to take one of the most promising comic movies of the decade and tear it apart without any basis in reality."

It has no basis in reality. It's a movie.

You seem, if I may be so permitted, to be of the mind that such details, details the studio is deeply concerned over, are *meaningless.* Let's then move on to matters of substance then, shall we? Let's talk pop cultural relavancy and subtext.

Nolan and Goyer seem to understand that for a comics adaptation to be successful, the concept must be highly current, highly relevant. Spider-Man was so monolithic in terms of box office dollars because the idea of a youthful hero standing up to a terrorist attacking New York City, a figure that unifies the public, well, that's exactly what people needed after 911 (like how Star Wars brings people in right after Vietnam ends, a movie that rejects the cynicism of that period and early post-Watergate America). X-Men touches on hot button issues right now, prejudice, forever with us, always relevant. And Goyer and Nolan have taken us to a like corner of our current culture.

Batman, is fighting a "swarthy foreigner" who uses *fear* as a weapon. Batman is literally fighting, what? Terror. Batman is fighting a war on those who "use fear as a weapon." Terrorists. That's even in the teaser. Nolan and Goyer have him as Bush in black rubber. Don't buy that? Here he is, a rich man, a man with a huge family owned corporation, who goes out and bucks the system, takes the fight to the enemy, takes justice into his *own* hands in his *own* ways, and rides into town like a cowboy. Yeah, this is current, but this is also highly divisive, isn't it? I mean, not everybody in the US is really happy about this Bush Doctrine deal. It could backfire, and it could seem exploitive. Me? I think it is.

Batman Begins is also a revenge tale. Revenge pictures aren't very hot right now, and it could have something to do with the fact that we're in a war. The Punisher, Elektra, Walking Tall, all flops. And even Kill Bill was hemorrhaging ticket sales from the opening weekends on down (the film would drop whole positions in a matter of a week or days, showing mainstream audiences were fleeing it). But a distinction exists between Batman and such other flicks that I'd be remiss if I failed to mention, and that's that Nolan and Goyer included that relevancy option. Again though, the difficulty here is if that element comes off as too "pro Bush Doctrine, terror war propaganda" with people.

I'm sure you'll be the skeptic when it comes to this suggestion emerging in public discourse, or in the press. I bet it will. Why? Because that Spielberg War of The Worlds thing is *openly* a "lesson picture" about the war in Iraq. Spielberg and his producers want us to "understand what it feels like to be attacked on our own soil." I'd like to ask him why the public *needs* a fantasy to explain that sentiment to them when we had 911 to give us a clue, but whatever. The point is, Batman Begins will be up against this very politically vocal film. *Somebody*, some critic, some talking head on a cable news outfit, somebody somewhere will compare the two films on the issue of the terror war. Look, I'm doing it already *for* them. See, it can happen.

I don't see Batman "Begining Again" after this release for a long, long time. Part of the success of the earlier Batman films had to do with the *rarity* of seeing comic books come alive on the screen. Now, such is commonplace. So, that steals one more advantage away. And naturally the staggering star power of those films were important. Batman Begins does *not* have star power (I don't mean to besmirch the cast, which is populated mostly with performers of excellence) Michael Caine was once an important actor, who now has fallen to the reputation of Michael "Never Met A Script He Didn't Like, Did Jaws Four: The Revenge So He Could Have a Vacation In The Islands" Caine.

Lastly, when the Batman franchise of the '90's emerged, it was *ahead* of the curve, the leader having all manner of comic books adaptations (which nearly one and all misfired) follow it to the screen. But now, Batman is *behind* the curve, behind it by *half* a *decade* and seemingly trying to catch up. This makes it less looking like a "winner", a bold attempt, but more like Warner Brothers trying to revive a franchise just as a trend looks to be on the way out.

So, here's a movie with all these things working against it coming out in a "Star Wars" summer. In order to reach at least three hundred million, it *must* be a hotly anticipated movie by *general audiences*, the comic crowd is never enough in terms of population to carry a film to the two hundred million mark. Does anybody here really think Batman *can* be embraced by the American public the way that Spider-Man film was? Because that's what you need to reach three hundred million domestic dollars. Remember, this will be the fifth movie featuring that character! Sequels normally as a rule do less than what preceded them. BB is saddled with even *this* disadvantage.

Best I can see Batman doing is a Hulk sized ticket sales take. A misfire with one hundred and sixty million dollars domestic. Considering the thing costs one hundered eighty something to make, and another on hundred million to promote, it's hopeless.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[norrinraad]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>Best I can see Batman doing is a Hulk sized ticket sales take. A misfire with one hundred and sixty million dollars domestic. Considering the thing costs one hundered eighty something to make, and another on hundred million to promote, it's hopeless.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make some compelling arguments, no doubt about it. I just don't see why you would invest so much time in negativity. This is, after all, a web site for fans of C2Fs. Instead of consigning the film to failure before it even opens, why not allow that this could be the film that raises the bar for our crazy little industry? Competition can be a very healthy thing, especially for us fans. If Batman Begins takes these kind of films to the next level and jolts Marvel our of their complacency, we fans are going to end up the winners. The last few Marvel releases felt suspiciously like they were resting on their laurels, so perhaps this will give them a needed kick in the arse.

As for your assertion that the failure of this film is a foregone conclusion, I would perhaps look at the bigger picture. The film may not hit $300 million domestically, but so what? Have you considered overseas gross? DVD sales? Merchandising? Cable television residuals? Batman may not be the cash cow for WB that Spider-Man is for Sony, but to suggest that it will be a financial failure is a little premature.

I am well aware that Marvel wants Fantastic Four to be "the" C2F of summer 2005, but this obvious online propoganda is a little transparent, no?

http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/tongue.gif http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/biggrin.gif http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by norrinraad (edited 03-14-2005).]

[ToM]

"I am well aware that Marvel wants Fantastic Four to be "the" C2F of summer 2005, but this obvious online propoganda is a little transparent, no?"

Oh, I have some critical shots to take at the the adaptation of THE WORLD'S GREATEST COMIC MAGAZINE as well. Still, I must admit I'm much more interested in that film if only because they're something that hasn't been tried before. I started out by saying, "let's be real" so, you know, let's. Nothing I'm saying *here* on a C2F board is going to dissuade anybody from seeing Batman Begins, because of *what* kind of fans they are, see what I mean? It isn't like this is Aint It Cool News where you have more of a mix. To be sure I see a war of propaganda out there, but not *here.* Here, it'd be shooting blanks.

The reason I introduce these opinions is...they've not materialized online before. And, in a few months time, just like the morning after election, throngs in the camp will be asking, "What went wrong?" I find it somewhat absurd to have a board for comics to film adaptation that isn't capable of discussing the realities of the genre, the state of the industry, as other boards centered on the filmic thrive on. The discussion must become more full blooded if it's to become worthwhile, and the genre be treated as a *true* genre, scars and all, rather than critical thumbsucking. It cannot be about webshooters and "how they made the Bat-Belt" only, but of substance, of cultural measure, of role. It amazes me how comics fans will sing to the moon of how "elevated" beyond these things the content of comics has become (bandying about the term "graphic novel") and yet somehow refuses to elevate the discussion surrounding the material.

You mentioned the "larger picture", so let's do that. Part of the reason it'll be harder and harder for comics adaptations to see the choice directors on projects is that they'll feel they're coming late to a party, and nobody likes to do that. See, this little genre hasn't become "established" yet in the way that say, science fiction has. We *now* accept sci fi as a permanent fixture of the filmic. So, directors feel they can do one when they please, that they're not jumping into the middle of a trend that'll leave, or showing up just as the party is ending, or after the party is over. Disco movies werea trend, directors didn't mind being there first or second. But nobody wanted (great) to do a disco movie when the trend was collapsing. See where this is going?

If *Batman* sputters out, if even *he* can't* cut it at the box office, after a string of misfires and outright flops, outfits like Marvel will digging holes in the ground looking for decent directors for projects. Meanwhile, DC is owned outright by Warners, but the *company* has never shown much genuine interest in the comics library by way of live action content. And given that they'll be three for three with flops if Batman Begins tanks as I suspect it will, well, that ties this trend up in a neat little knot.

If this genre seems to be more of a trend, one doing a fade out because Warners has three consecutive flops, coupled with a string of bottlenecked Marvel-related releases, directors are going to feel they're showing up for last call. And they won't want to do that. Already we're seeing a director say he doesn't want X3 for something much *akin* to this ( the film being a second sequel, a little too far down the road for him).

There was a time when Batman at Warner Brothers, and frankly that studio in general were opening doors for the genre. And then there came a period where they were *ruining* the opportunities for the genre with high profile garbage. Well, Catwoman didn't help matters. And now with Constantine, matters are worse.

Now, you introduce a worthy subject, DVD and domestic sales. Studios have become increasingly dependent on DVD sales to carry out a success given the price of tickets. See, fewer and fewer Americans are heading to the movies. Yet, there's a new disturbance with The Force, DVD sales have *already* peaked. DVD players have proliferated American homes, and whilst this process was undergoing, the sales of movies on DVD were building and building. But Hollywood forgot somethinng, something they best of all in the management of our popculture should have kept close to their expectations, Americans love "the next new thing." And they love it till it isn't *new* anymore. The American Revolution never really ended, it just turned into other *forms* of "revolution", and one train of such took them to DVDs. Now they're moving towards embracing some new cultural change on the way it seems.

Still, I'm sure Batman Begins will sell some DVDs (but given the shoddy treatment WB has given the features on disc for all these years till recently, I'm guessing the older films didn't exactly sell like McMuffins in the morn'in).

Preeeessssent'in, the international sales solution! Yes, these are now essential to the point that they're reported with nearly as much anticipation as domestic sales up in the studio head offices. All the same, domestic sales represent what the cultural vibe is. LXG did well overseas largely, and Hulk was a Hulking power at the Latin box offices, do you see either being rushed into production as you do Spider-Man or X3? Of course not.

See, it costs rather a great deal to release pictures like this here at home. There *are* such things as distribution expenses you know. Takes money to make money. And why use production expenses on something so iffy when it could be poured into a more promising project, or that studio space being used for something more in touch with audiences tastes? See what I mean? Just making that movie they'll be losing money by costing themselves a better opportunity.

While they're cutting this movie, I hope some of these point will find *some* measure of consideration. Turning Wayne's company into the military industrial complex is a mistake. And having Batman as a black rubbery Bush riding around in an armored *military* vehicle, an armored *army* vehicle all undisguised as such, but *promoted* as such, is a mistake. It feels exploitive, will be received in this way by many. There's great power in the edit. Scenes could be cut in highly specific ways to down play this (I hope). And I hope they see these things in time and make the best choices.

But right now how I look at this is that Batman was the guy who started the costume party , then showed up later on for another and threw up in the punch bowl. And now I hear he's showing up for *this* shinddig that's been so hot a ticket for so many years. I'm a little worried about what he'll bring to the festivities this time around.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[norrinraad]

Some good points sir! Let's address some of them...

"To be sure I see a war of propaganda out there, but not *here.* Here, it'd be shooting blanks."

Actually, if you take a gander at some of the other boards, you may be surprised to find that not all C2Fs are openly embraced here. Films like Catwoman, Elektra, and Constantine met with their fair share of derision, with some members flat out refusing to see some of these films. Yes we are fans of the genre, but not everything is wholeheartedly embraced.

"It amazes me how comics fans will sing to the moon of how "elevated" beyond these things the content of comics has become (bandying about the term "graphic novel") and yet somehow refuses to elevate the discussion surrounding the material."

I wish I could disagree with you here but alas, I cannot. What I can say though is that of the select few websites I visit regularly, I've found the discussion here to be generally more civilized and of a higher caliber than most places on the web. Unfortunately, much critical discussion on the internet (especially concerning popular culture) consists of "this movie is going to be a steaming pile of #%$@" and "so and so can lick the rancid sweat from my %#$@". When you allow everyone and anyone a forum to voice their opinion, this seems to be the inevitable result.

"See, this little genre hasn't become "established" yet in the way that say, science fiction has. We *now* accept sci fi as a permanent fixture of the filmic."

Really? I'm not so sure this "trend" is as fleeting as you say. I would include C2Fs in the fantasy genre as opposed to its own category. Within the fantasy genre you have quite a few sub-categories, as with the horror genre. Ghost stories, slasher films, monsters, aliens, all fall under that vague unbrella known as horror, and all can be viable box office entries. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy proved that fantasy, done properly, has not lost its commercial appeal. C2Fs will survive as long as the market permits it, simple as that.

"The American Revolution never really ended, it just turned into other *forms* of "revolution", and one train of such took them to DVDs. Now they're moving towards embracing some new cultural change on the way it seems."

Hmm, nothing I've read suggests that the DVD market has become saturated. Every boom must have its bust, but I doubt the public is going to stay away in droves from this DVD. Even the Catwoman DVD turned that film into a profitable enterprise. When you consider how much more eagerly anticipated Batman is, I think there's little cause for alarm.

"See, it costs rather a great deal to release pictures like this here at home. There *are* such things as distribution expenses you know. Takes money to make money. And why use production expenses on something so iffy when it could be poured into a more promising project, or that studio space being used for something more in touch with audiences tastes?"

Now this I don't get at all. This film is easily going to be one of the most critic-proof of the year. When you consider that the last two Batman films still did good box office despite critical and fan dislike, I don't see how Batman Begins could be considered risky. If anything, the casting and production choices seem to have fans quite pleased.

"There's great power in the edit. Scenes could be cut in highly specific ways to down play this (I hope). And I hope they see these things in time and make the best choices."

Ah, so you object to some of the choices in the film. Fair enough, but keep in mind that this is more or less a re-imagining. The changes don't really seem that gratuitious to me and I doubt they are politically motivated. Have some faith, the particulars may not be to your taste but what really matters is the execution. I'm thinking you may be pleasantly surprised.

[The Xenos]

Just feel the need to reply to a number of comments I feel need counterpoints.

Essex: "Leave it to a comic fanboy to take one of the most promising comic movies of the decade and tear it apart without any basis in reality."

Tom: "It has no basis in reality. It's a movie."

I belive you misunderstand him. He's saying your claims have no basis in reality, not the movie. At the same time, I bleive this movie does have a basis in reality. It's not some fantasy where the Batmobile can drive up walls and there's a character called Miss B Havin. It's a more serious and down to Earth take on Batman ala Batman: Year One and the current Batman books. Have you even read any of the comics or do you jsut go to theme parks?


Tom: " Batman, is fighting a "swarthy foreigner" who uses *fear* as a weapon. Batman is literally fighting, what? Terror. Batman is fighting a war on those who "use fear as a weapon." Terrorists."

Where the hell did you get that? I don't thnk Scarecrow is allied with Ra's. I belive he's linked with the mob in the film. And where the hell did you dig up on the "swarthy foreigner" line? Ra's is shown as an eco terrorist in the books, an somehwat Arabic one even, but I belive in the movie they have an interesting twist that he's just shown in training Batman setting up confrontation in later films.

Tom: " Batman Begins is also a revenge tale. Revenge pictures aren't very hot right now, and it could have something to do with the fact that we're in a war. The Punisher, Elektra, Walking Tall, all flops."

Yes, well those were all also bad movies. This one has Batman and I thnk more compident directors with what sounds like little studio meddling.

Tom: "Again though, the difficulty here is if that element comes off as too "pro Bush Doctrine, terror war propaganda" with people."

Where the hell are you getting this? Again, the focus on the film seems to be Batman vs the mob and also Scarecrow hired by them. Ra's is just there in the training backstory. Later he might be shown as a terrorist threat, but not now. Plus so what if Batman's fighting a terrorist? SFW? One of the best stories from the 70s that turned Batman dark and smart again, which many forget due to Miller's great stuff in the 80s, was when O'Neil and Adams had Batman fighting eco-terroist Ra's Al Ghul. Of course, he wasn't Islamic, jsut Arabic named.

Tom: "Nothing I'm saying *here* on a C2F board is going to dissuade anybody from seeing Batman Begins, because of *what* kind of fans they are, see what I mean? It isn't like this is Aint It Cool News where you have more of a mix."

Sidenote: I gotta say the 'boards' on AICN are some of the most random and insane gathering of people out of tuch with reality I have ever seen.

Tom: "The reason I introduce these opinions is...they've not materialized online before."

Well I gotta say maybe because your accusations have no basis in reality. You provide no infomation backing up your claims. Batman's suit is based on Six Flags. Batman is a pro-Bush movie about fighting terrorists. Have your read the script? The comics even? Are you getting this just from your own assumptions at the trailers and internet talk?

"And then there came a period where they were *ruining* the opportunities for the genre with high profile garbage. Well, Catwoman didn't help matters. And now with Constantine, matters are worse."

True, these last films were terrible as were the last Bat-films. Though COnstantine did do a decent box office as much as they somewhat changed the characters. At the same time, Marvel had flops like Elektra and Daredevil. I think Batman Begins shows a turn around at DC. Not that nothing they do after this will flop, but I got a feeling we finally have a true to the recent character Batman movie. Even Burton's was based more on the old 40s characters with his won dark twist. Again, have you even read any of these Batman comics the movie is based on?

-Xenos

[ToM]

"Really? I'm not so sure this "trend" is as fleeting as you say. I would include C2Fs in the fantasy genre as opposed to its own category. Within the fantasy genre you have quite a few sub-categories, as with the horror genre."

Oh, this is certainly something I can agree with. I was speaking more in line with the superheroes being adapted into cinematic life. To be sure, market saturation is a real problem. There's a veritable Justice League of costumed characters running around out there, and they're going to start tripping over each other's campy capes. The question is, is Batman ineligible to join their honored ranks in the Multiplex of Justice for the sake of his past misdeeds? If he proves unworthy, he's taken a space away from another hero who might have been welcomed into the ranks.

See, it's all well and good for Nolan and Goyer and the Warners PR machine to endlessly recite their mantra that "This Batman film is all-new, a relaunch to launch the ages!" Yes, this is a restart. But I'm the general audience are aware that the '89 film was a restart because the studio needed to break away from the public image of '67 theatrical film. And then Batman Forever was a whole new restart (and a new costume or two for that matter) with a new actor in the role, a retelling of his origins, the initiating of the Batman And Robin concept. Given that for the second sequel a new actor was playing Batman, and it featured some radically modified costiumes, it was a restart in the same sense that Brosnan taking over the Bond role was such.

Batman has been *nothing* but "restarts" since '89 aside from the second Burton film.

So, now Warner Brothers is coming out and saying the equivalent of, "Batman is being restarted... we really mean it this time!" Well, let's let good 'ol Charlie Brown try to kick the football one more time. After all, Lucy only charges ten cents for the therapy she leaves him in need of with such antics. Or, Charlie could skip the whole formality and save his ten cents for the next Batman Ten Cent Mystery.

In the end, I wonder if the general audience this summer will bother to kick at that football. I mean, over and over again Batman has restarted and where did it ever lead? Was it really ever "new", or just all the same mistakes made with different actors and color schemes? Does it *look* all new? It looks just like it used to look. I'm a big believer in second chances, but who deserves to get *three* or more "second" chances in this life? There's a lot of art, many productions out there who deserve a shot and never even get just one.

"Hey Rocky, watch me pull a Batman movie outt'a my hat!"

"Oh Bullwinkle, that trick never works."

In spite of all the talk, all the hype, what we're left with is a Frankenstein crazy quilt of various movies, scripts cut up and taped together like a ransom note (only the only one taken hostage really is the character of Batman...or maybe the general audience). They told the fans "the rubber suit is gone, we're going full on in a new direction" and then they put a rubber bat head on the Michilin Man, an old black beach towel around his neck and call him Batman again.

Batman started the costume party, but then he showed up for another one years later and threw up into the punch bowl. Now I hear he's crashing this little shindig that's been such a hot ticket for the last so many years. I'm just a bit concerned over what he'll be bringing to the festivities this time.

As for DVD sales peaking, yeah, the industry has concerns because sales of DVDs in general have slowed down a good ways from what they were just even a year ago.

Now, you make mention of how eargerly anticipated Batman Begins is, but anticipated by who exactly? This film has a sticker price of a hundred and eighty so dollars, with another hundred million for promotion. Comics fans aren't enough in terms of population to make *any* film this costly pan out at the domestic box office. That's just a fact. Given that Warners kept Batman in Mothman-balls for nearly a decade shows how little interest there was for another feature on the part of general audiences.

Also, consider how the media have treated both Fantastic Four and Batman Begins. Six months back now, the USA Today ran full color photos of the characters, with the front page of the paper holding a full color photo in the upper right hand corner to advertise what was inside. They ran a full color photo of the cast again later with a short article about how the trailer was attached to that awful Elektra movie. They even had an article about a teaser trailer for Pete's sakes.

Then, last week, the USA Today ran a photo from Batman Begins. It was in an article about uncoming releases. The picture was set in with one photo each of War of The Worlds, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory and KIng Kong. See the association? They're all remakes. But two days later that same paper ran a two page spread on the Fantastic Four movie featuring five photos, four in color, with an additional photo on the front page of the newspaper. It reads, "Can Fantastic Four Pump-Up The Comic Book Movie Genre?" So, what's happening here? Batman is being taken like a shrug, like yesterday's news here again like some Watchtower tract shoved in the crack of the front door, while the Fantastic Four film, flaws all reported, is treated like something *new* because it *is* something new.

Pretty clearly the media is treating the FF movie differently because it's considered to have possibilities. And Batman is being treated as negligible because the readers seem hardly interested. I mean, come one, Elektra was getting coverage like this a *year* in advance of the release, and where was The Batman? He was at home, wash'in his tights.

The papers just aren't getting a sense of any demand. And why would they? I mean, as I already pointed out, Batman has "Begun" time and time and time again, frequently to less than satisfying results.

You know, it hardly matters if this film is "critic proof" or not. Ebert castigated Spider-Man, the world watched on anyway. The heart wants what the heart wants. You can only fool the public so many times before they catch on.

As for the thematics here, I don't consider them politically motivated. Subtext is nearly ever present in Hollywood product. Look at all the social/political subtext in X2? I mean, they blast the homeland security culture, examine the orientation of families, you name it, it's there. Nolan and Goyer are just trying to make Batman Begins "current" or "about something", because the only successful adaptations of superheroes in recent years contain that. They just picked the wrong thing IMO.

I also don't think the general audiences at who this picture is being tossed are *expected* to notice this element consciously, but respond to it on an emotional level, identify with the world presented there, it's strengths, it's fears. And therefore respond more powerfully, being drawn into it, thereby making it more successful. This is the phenomena that made that Spider-Man film so huge. In the case of Spider-Man, it was all accidental, and only was noticed afterwards. Nolan and Goyer are attempting I suspect to artificially reproduce this effect. It's like they're hoping people will champion Batman because "he's keeping them safe from UBL" on some sociological plane.

Did you see the color of the "Batmobile" before it's painted black? It's in *desert style* camouflage. It's an armored humvee. I mean, how blatant a thing *is* this? Wayne's company makes weapons for the military. It's the American military industrial complex, Wayne is in charge of it, he gets in this thing and fights people who use *terror* literally as a weapon. And in the teaser trailer it says he, "Brings fear to those who use *fear* as a weapon." The Ra's character *is* a terrorist, always has been in the comics, and is now more than ever. Why do you think they changed his Arabic backround? Would've been *too* obvious.

But it isn't about aggrandizing the war IMO. I suspect this is more about trying to attach itself to powerful social events and situations so as to get a more primal reaction from the general audience.

sidenote: Constantine fell Kong-like the second weekend out with a decline of sixty percent or *greater* in ticket sales. At this rate the domestic box office has it as a serious misfire. Warners is two for two in duds with DC material. They have a spare tire with Superman if it ends up three for three.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[norrinraad]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
But it isn't about aggrandizing the war IMO. I suspect this is more about trying to attach itself to powerful social events and situations so as to get a more primal reaction from the general audience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course! What else would you expect? I doubt WB would sink close to $300 million into a film and hope it opens to empty theatres. People are paid good money to study social trends and anticipate public reaction. So what? So DC wants a Spider-Man level hit. Who wouldn't? If this film bombs we may not see another Batman film for 20 years. And then who would the losers really be?

I liken this to the music industry. Without commercial juggernauts like U2 and Britney Spears, bands like The Strokes and White Stripes would find it that much harder to get a foot in the door. If the Backstreet Boys allowed The Killers to get signed, I can live with that. Likewise, if Batman is a huge hit and allows Fables to get made, I don't see the crime.

Anyway, it's clear you have already judged the movie but I'm betting that you will be seeing it just like everyone else, if only to prove or disprove your position. The sheer amount of thought you've put into it only confirms this film's cultural importance. Love it or hate it, no one is going to ignore this movie. I honestly don't think it's going to be the mere ripple you're predicting.

[Kwick22a]

The way I see it we can talk and talk all we want, but we won't know for sure until the movie comes out. Maybe it'll suck, maybe it'll be great. If it sucks it'll do poorly at the box office, if it's good it'll do well.
Basically I think if you want to go see it, then go see it. If you don't want to see it you don't have to.
Really it's just a movie, not the end of the world.

[ToM]

"Of course! What else would you expect? I doubt WB would sink close to $300 million into a film and hope it opens to empty theatres. People are paid good money to study social trends and anticipate public reaction. So what?"

Warners sinking to such dank depths as exploiting public fears, or their culture shock from having their age old sense of America's invulnerability because they've dumped more than three hundred million into this project only explains their bad taste, it doesn't *excuse* such. And it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Playing on *patriotic* feelings, the public sentiment of say, World War Two, that's a whole other thing. That unifies the public, that uplifts them, encourages them in the face of their fears. But with a tactic like *this* the ploy works by tapping into their fears, their unhappiness, and then attaching their feelings to a fictional character in the hopes of cashing *in* on how vulnerable their insecurities have rendered them. The audience is being *exploited* for a buck. I mean, under such conditions it's like trying to sociologically place the character as the solution to their fears and psychologically ringing a sense of "need" for him out of the audience so as to ring out their cash.

Puts a whole new edge on the term, "A hero for our times."

I hear you loud and clear about The Backstreet Boys selling being the door for which The Killers walks on in through. But like I said above, Batman *ended* the costume party at theaters for a long time (aside from the fact that most of the films that followed him were duds to begin with). It might just be that Warner Brothers adaptations, Batman included, will be Jim Jones working the Slurpee machine. Oh sure, he puts the superhero pictures on the plastic cups. But it isn't what's on the cups that kills the slurpee sales. I'm worried that Batman being a misfire will seriously contribute to the downfall of this genre.

As for the sheer volume of thought I've contributed to this, well, nobody can deny Batman's pop culture significance. Still, what concerns me is the niche' entire, not Batman. And he poses a danger, so I consider him. Still, I need not see the movie to gage if I'm correct or not. I'll merely follow the box office data as I normally do.

But let's consider his cultural importance for a second. I think we could be looking at what I call the Blade State. After the Campy Crusader's last entry, comic adaptations all but dried up. Then, in '98, Blade hit screens. It was high comic book action, but it was the more dark, serious tone that people had been craving, and not getting for so long. And it was based in a credible world, steeped in largely credible characters, all dialog camp free, all things said straight. And it was a success.

Blade opens the door to movies like X-Men in 2000. I mean, consider the plot points, X-Men was borrowing from Blade (the bad guy faces discrimination for his genetic characteristics, sets to eliminate this attitude in his society by metamorphosing everyone within range of an energy he releases). His popularity as a film subject continues till the release of Spider-Man. Then, most interest in him wanes.

See, Blade wasn't a "real" comic book superhero, he was just standing in for them, satisfying an interest in such films till they reemerged. Once audiences had the real thing again, they had no interest in showing up for Blade Trinity.

I think the old club footed rubber Batman is like this. He opened the door, then the door closed on him. His time has passed him by. He served his purpose, the general audience has moved on I suspect. Besides, the novelty with these more recent films has been to see these characters we've *not* had a look at on the big screen before up there in cinematic life. We've seen the rubber Batman one time too many as it stands. He needed to be "new" to capture this sense in the general audience, and they blew it.

Batman has pop cultural importance, but Warners ran him into the ground to the point that they felt nearly ten years is what it would take for interest to return. What he offered, that high action comic bookish excitement has been being provided in better ways by better presented characters for years now. He just hasn't been needed, and creating an artificial sense of "need" by making him Bush In Black Rubber isn't the way to go. It's tasteless.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[norrinraad]

"Batman has pop cultural importance, but Warners ran him into the ground to the point that they felt nearly ten years is what it would take for interest to return. What he offered, that high action comic bookish excitement has been being provided in better ways by better presented characters for years now. He just hasn't been needed, and creating an artificial sense of "need" by making him Bush In Black Rubber isn't the way to go. It's tasteless."

Fully assuming, of course, that this is an intentional ploy on behalf of WB. I recently read a comment made by an executive at Coca-Cola. He was asked if the whole "New Coke" fiasco of the 80s was intentional as a means of making the public miss "Classic Coke", thus increasing its sales. Sales of the soft drink had been declining for years, at least in North America. Once Classic Coke was re-released, after New Coke had bombed in the marketplace, sales went through the roof. His response? "I would love to take credit for it, but it was merely a happy accident. I only wish we, as a company, were that clever!"

I'm not sure I would read that much into the cosmetic changes to the Batman mythos. Let's keep in mind that the guy who wrote and directed Blade Trinity also wrote Batman Begins. The third Blade film was hardly a subversive masterpiece, nor did it tap into any kind of collective fear or need. I think everyone involved realises that the last two Batman films were misfires, and WB cares enough about the character to try and make ammends. After all, it could have been Ben Affleck under the cowl, with Michael Bay directing. Sure we could be cynical and say those two cost way more than Nolan and Bale. Or, we could also take it as evidence that WB cares more about what the fans want than they're given credit for.

Anyway, this could go on forever, but I for one am hoping that Batman redeems himself with this film and kickstarts our little sub-genre, which admittedly seems to be suffering a mini backlash as of late.



[This message has been edited by norrinraad (edited 03-15-2005).]

[The Xenos]

"Batman has pop cultural importance, but Warners ran him into the ground to the point that they felt nearly ten years is what it would take for interest to return. What he offered, that high action comic bookish excitement has been being provided in better ways by better presented characters for years now. He just hasn't been needed, and creating an artificial sense of "need" by making him Bush In Black Rubber isn't the way to go. It's tasteless."

Lemme guess, you voted for Kerry? (Voted for Dean myself as being from MA I know what a hack Kerry was and was disapointed with how messed up the Democrats are. How hard was it to beat out Bush?!)

Ok, when you start calling this new Batman "Bush in a Black Rubber suit", you really have gone over the edge. Where are you comming up with this Bush crap? Now that's tasteless nevermind nonsensical. Really where are you getting this whole Bush thing from. I'm getting tired of these unrealistic conspiracies and arguments from all these fanatical anti-Bush people. There are many arguments to be made against him and many chrages you can accuse him of, but many opponents just go too far and are so anti-Bush they don't make sense. I'm seeing this Batman is Bush in the new film of yours as the latest. You ahve given no reason, no evidence, for why this would be pro-Bush. You only ahve your own political assumptions of a movie you haven't seen. You even state that Scarecrow works for Ra's promoting terror when I belive he's really working for the mob for some reason.

Believe me, I don't like the guy and I can't stand conservative infulences on movies and media. Yet I don't see any of that here. I've been following this movie's development closely, even back when Aronofsky was attached. I don't see how Nolan, a British filmmaker, would have suh a pro-Bush agenda. I don't see how Bush enters the equasion at all. On a Michael Bay film or some thriller, maybe, but this film? No.

Also, again, have you read the comics? Do you understand how cool it is to see a villian like Ra's. Also, he is not all that evil and his message is somewhat sympathetic. They are having Batman trained by a possibly sympathetic enviromental terrorist who wants to randomly decrease the world's population.

Plus, hey, according your view of this, you're having Bush trained by Osama Bin Laden. That's rather interesting and not really pro-Bush anyway.

-Xenos

[The Xenos]

Oh and as for the being run into the ground and that Batman brings "high action comic bookish excitement".. What Batman have you been reading?

Sure the last films by Schumacher ran the frqanchise into the ground. They were based more of the comic bookish camp of the 60s.

This new film brings things to the more crime drama and realism of the Batman books of the 70s and 80s. I don't think we've seen those on film as Burtons were more the classic Batman of the 40s with his own dark and modern twist.

Batman Begins emphasises realism, in setting, heroics and psycology. It seems more like the Batman books of the last 20 year I have been reading. You have things from Miller's books in the 80s, O'Neil and Adams stuff from the 70s with Ra's (which brought Batman back to reality after the 60s), as well as reminded me of various other books with Scarecrow (Haunted Knight?) and Batman's training (Batman: Shaman?).

How can you ignore this wonderful use of excellent Batman books?

-Xenos

[ToM]

I don't really think the New Coke example is coming into play with this (though it does make for a well staged position). When you're dealing with iconic characters, or characters being depicted as larger than life, artists, in this case a director and screewriter, seek to find subtext to give it "meaning." X2 was a film that was huge in terms of audience reaction, in part because it was very current with the times. We're living in a time of an emerging "Homeland Security culture." In the X-Men, we find representatives of our inner discomfort with the social modification. We also find ourselves in a very critical period in our culture, and this film plays out our hopes for tolerance, and steps back with second looks given all around. This is something they were aiming for. It worked.

So, when it comes to Batman Begins, well, the subtext stands forth.

"I'm not sure I would read that much into the cosmetic changes to the Batman mythos. Let's keep in mind that the guy who wrote and directed Blade Trinity also wrote Batman Begins. The third Blade film was hardly a subversive masterpiece, nor did it tap into any kind of collective fear or need.

I suspect there was a reason Blade Trinity served none of these things (and it *does* have something to do with Batman Begins, so just hang on while I set that up). It's my suspicion that Goyer understood that the Balde films no longer have a role to play in this trend. They served the public appitites for superheroics on screen till the real superheroes showed up, and then, with them present, he was no longer of any real value to the pop culture. Part of the reason I think this is the case has to do with *how* Goyer treated the Blade character in the film.

He marginalized Blade in his own film. Rather than deal with Blade as directly in the past, he filled the script up with reflection characters. In fact, he gives the best lines to these people (in particular Hannibal King) and has them talk over and *down* to Blade often enough. I'm thinking Goyer felt that "Blade" himself was no longer enough to keep the movie floating, he wasn't as interesting anymore, we'd seen him twice over, there wasn't a way to beef him up enough (because no longer served the same role in the cinema as he did earlier on). His time was just over. Other characters had picked up the slack, and better accomplished what Blade as a series was doing.

While working on Blade, Goyer is literally flipping the script over and pulling up Batman Begins (depending on who from what studio has just walked into the room). And what do we see? Goyer is treating *Batman* in very much the same way. He's surrounding him with very nearly an ensemble cast. It's no longer "Batman, it's "Batman Family." Do you take my meaning? I wonder if this is for the same reasoning I assume with Blade. Were these choices made because after all this time, all these films and one restart after another, "Batman himself just isn't enough anymore."

In the interim since the last Batman film, other characters had picked up the slack, and better accomplished what Batman as a series had done. It just isn't enough for Batman to be put out there on screens anymore. Like Blade, he saw what returns he did largely because he was the only such show in town. That hasn't been the case in a long time. His *own* fans have missed him, but I think general audiences haven't because *other* series have been filling that niche's for their comic book adventure fix. And the public had become bored with him before any of that.

So, this also goes back to maybe this will be the right film, but just at the wrong time. If Batman misfores, it doesn't *have* to mean the public is bored with this subgenre, but I fear it'll be taken that way. Cross your fingers and whistle in the dark.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[norrinraad]

"I don't really think the New Coke example is coming into play with this (though it does make for a well staged position)."

Understood. Keep in mind though that I was using that as a random example. I've always found smart people to be endlessly interesting, but I've noticed they do have a rather obvious flaw. Those who are intelligent enough to come up with plausible conspiracy theories have a tendency to attribute similar insight and vision to all others. In many cases, individuals (and organizations) are just not worthy of the label.

"When you're dealing with iconic characters, or characters being depicted as larger than life, artists, in this case a director and screewriter, seek to find subtext to give it "meaning." X2 was a film that was huge in terms of audience reaction, in part because it was very current with the times. We're living in a time of an emerging "Homeland Security culture." In the X-Men, we find representatives of our inner discomfort with the social modification. We also find ourselves in a very critical period in our culture, and this film plays out our hopes for tolerance, and steps back with second looks given all around."

I couldn't agree with you more, though it never ceases to amaze me how perception differs from one indivudual to another. X2 was so ripe with context I'm still surprised Fox allowed Singer and Penn to get away with what they did! When you consider that this film, on the surface, was disguised as a testosterone soaked action picture, it becomes even more of an anomoly. I'm sure the collective involvement of Singer, McKellen, and Jackman had much to do with the end result. My favourite was Bobby "coming out" to his parents as a mutant. "But, couldn't you just try NOT to be a mutant?" Brilliant, just brilliant!

However, where Batman is concerned we're looking at a huge international team of collaborators here, so I find it hard to believe that the film will be as politically motivated as you seem to think. If anything, I'm sure the producers would do anything to avoid polarising the potential audience. Dare I say it, but I honestly think Bush and his regime are almost becoming cliche at this point. Had the film come out in 2004 I might have been more inclined to agree with you, but by the time summer roles around I'm sure even Michael Moore will have moved on to other things.

"He marginalized Blade in his own film. Rather than deal with Blade as directly in the past, he filled the script up with reflection characters. In fact, he gives the best lines to these people (in particular Hannibal King) and has them talk over and *down* to Blade often enough. I'm thinking Goyer felt that "Blade" himself was no longer enough to keep the movie floating, he wasn't as interesting anymore, we'd seen him twice over, there wasn't a way to beef him up enough (because no longer served the same role in the cinema as he did earlier on). His time was just over."

Absolutely. I wrote an extremely negative review of the third Blade film on this very site. It certainly did feel like Blade was relegated to a supporting role in order to shift focus within a mutating franchise, but I'm wondering if Wesley's current status within the industry had more to do with that than the perception of Blade as an object of dwindling interest amongst the general public.

"So, this also goes back to maybe this will be the right film, but just at the wrong time. If Batman misfores, it doesn't *have* to mean the public is bored with this subgenre, but I fear it'll be taken that way. Cross your fingers and whistle in the dark."

Ah, a flicker of hope! I figured sooner or later your true agenda would reveal itself. I'm starting to think you want this film to succeed, which is encouraging. Really though, I don't think there's anything to worry about. I would go as far as to say I don't think failure is even possible. It may not set the world on fire the way Spider-Man did in summer 2002, but let's face it, all the stars alligned in just the right way where that film was concerned. Of course we had post 9-11 sentiment (as you mentioned), but there was also the novelty factor, not to mention the fact that it had been rumoured for years. Add to that mostly positive mainstream reviews and the result was a commercial juggernaut. Batman may not have as much going for it, but a solid production team is in place and expectations are high. Many still have fond memories of the original franchise so I think this in itself is enough to guarantee success.



[This message has been edited by norrinraad (edited 03-15-2005).]

[ToM]

However, where Batman is concerned we're looking at a huge international team of collaborators here, so I find it hard to believe that the film will be as politically motivated as you seem to think."

No, oh no, sorry, I guess I'm being too verbose and it's causing me to distort what I intend to be taken as my observation. What I'm saying is that Nolan and Goyer seem to be trying to attach this film *to* these elements (Bush, the war on terror, Bush *as* Batman and so on) simply to play to the "social current" running through the general audience. I'm not saying they're trying to produce propaganda, or any political/social agenda. They're trying to *exploit* the way people are *responding* to the war on terror, to exploit their desire for safety from terrorists, exploit the way so much of the public has supported homeland security to gain the same kind of reaction towards their character. In short, get them to psychologically associate *him* with the defense of the homeland, thereby giving him the same kind of emotional relevance with the audience (a feeling of "needing" Batman).

Remember when "Rocky fought Russia" on film? This is what I think they're trying to get from Batman Begins, that kind of audience emotional response.

As for Micheal Moore, he's working on a sequel to F911. You want a conspiracy theory, one could argue he's *really* on the GOP payroll.

Yeah, timing is everything. And the timing here might not be so good. But they'd thought this up long before now, and so, you know, how could they see the timing would be off in just a few months time, or by a whole year? I agree with you about that. And this is why in part I say this choice is a mistake.

But hey, look at War of The Worlds? They're making possibly an even bigger mistake. They're being openly political, with a producer saying the point to the film is to make Americans understand what it feels like to be attacked on their own soild (with regard to Iraq). This is so blatantly arrogant, to suggest that Americans *need* a *movie* with our cities being destroyed to "get" what it feels like, as though 911 never happened. Yes, we know what that feels like, and we don't need Speilberg to draw us a picture. Do these people think their FX are going to be more powerful than the deaths of thousands of Americans? The level of arrogance stuns me.

The reason I introduce this is to explain that yes, producers, screenwriters and directors *can* and *do* cook up this kind of political posturing to beef up summer movies. And, at the same time as doing such, they're often so arrogant about it that the possible fallout doesn't even occur to them. So, take this as a return to your noting the international nature of the producership on Batman Begins. I could easily see them cooking something up like this without a care as to what issues grow out of it, even between producers.

As for Blade, it could very well be that Snipe fading star was a contributing factor there. But I remember Snipes going and complaining to New Line execs about what Goyer was doing. If this came down from the top, Snipes would've known that and maybe he'd be taking the fight to them, rather than complaining about Goyer (who in that instance would be blameless, forced to follow orders, possibly even a creative ally to Snipes, hoping for more "Blade content in Blade). The middle ground between these two ideas would be that Goyer decreased Blade's presence in the script, and when Snipes went to New Line, he found his shrinking star power *allowed* for Goyer to do this. They didn't back Snipes up. His bankability is dulled, and so is interest in the Blade character (and you known that New Line was planning to retire and replace the franchise going into this movie).

Do I want Batman Begins to succeed? Well, yeah. I'm not so invested in Batman, at least, this rubbery adventurer known to us as Batman. But I *do* enjoy these subgenre of entertainment, and I want it to thrive. I *long* to see WEREWOLF BY NIGHT adapted, or even get a gander of the real Norrin Radd discovering what at first appears to be merely a debris field, then a sun, and then, finally, Manhattan. After all this time, and the many abuses he's suffered, a serious treatment of Swamp Thing is well deserved. Hell, I'd even settle for SKULL THE SLAYER at the IMAX. I wouldn't mind seeing Sandman one bit either.

But if they can't sell Batman, then I'm not sure what'll happen. But if Batman and the FF come off, I can rest easily enough. At the same time, inwardly, I'm disgusted by much of what I see and shouldn't want it rewarded. I'm at cross purposes here.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[FireStormTrooper]

Ummmm ... you're overanalyzing all this. It's just a movie about a man dressed as a bat who fights crime. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The Xenos]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> No, oh no, sorry, I guess I'm being too verbose and it's causing me to distort what I intend to be taken as my observation.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh. Glad I'm not the only one who does that around here. If I wasn't so tired I might have written a few more paragraphs.

-Xenos

[Majik1387]

I don't see why you guys are making a big deal out of this. This is not the only movie that borrows ideas from other movies, hell, there is not one movie today that is unique all the way through.

[DS]

Is it just me, or does ToM love to hear the sound of his own voice? Only on the internet will you see so much time and energy wasted on an issue so inconsequential.

If you're going to write a doctoral thesis on "the corporate/geo-political corruption of pop cultural icons in the post-modern world," at least wait until you've seen the film in question before you bore us with your rants.

[The Xenos]

True many movies aren't orginal. I'm sure this borrows from alot. I remember them comparing the Aronofsky planned Batman movie to The French Connection. Reading Year One, that makes snese. Of course, this one takes parts of Year One, but also does other things.

The thing that makes me happy, is how much they're taking from the books. They're not just using names, it sounds like they're getting the characters. In fact, the only thing bugging me is that they're no Lazarus Pits and no Talia with Ra's. Then again, there's always a sequel for that.

Of course the thing about films is why must they interbreed. Why not take from other sources like books. I remember there was an article at Comic Book Resources with Joe Casey talking about how comics like Watchmen and Killing Joke were so fresh, but even they borrowed from other sources. It was just many of those were outside comics so no one noticed. They said the image of the Joker (and pre-Joker Joker) in Killing Joke was based on the obscure cult classic film Eraserhead.

-Xenos

[Sonic1002]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Xenos:
<B>The thing that makes me happy, is how much they're taking from the books. They're not just using names, it sounds like they're getting the characters. In fact, the only thing bugging me is that they're no Lazarus Pits and no Talia with Ra's. Then again, there's always a sequel for that.
-Xenos</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not forget, my friend, they are going for realism here.... So, I doubt that the Lazarus Pits will ever make an appearance....


------------------
"I won't be just a memory."
-Sephiroth

[FireStormTrooper]

Speaking of Ra's al Ghul, did anyone else notice that one the official non-teaser one-sheet for BATMAN BEGINS that Ken Watanabe's (Ra's al Ghul) name is not highlighted with the other actors' names by the title? Kinda points to Ra's being a very minor character in the movie ... does he even have a speaking role?

[This message has been edited by FireStormTrooper (edited 03-21-2005).]

[yas3r]

not sure about the speaking role-but others missing from the 'big lettering' are Tom Wilkinson and Cillian Murphy.

I dont think this is to do with size of role so much as box office pull (why else put Katie Holmes up there next to Freeman, Neeson, Caine and Oldman---shes not worthy---shes not worthy).


I'd really like a straightforward Batman Begins thread-only the last time i tried to put one up...it was chopped.

I always have a lot to say about the filmand there is no thread to put general stuff in....please sort it out.

[ToM]

I see my observation on the political underpinnings of this film haven't met with the approval of somebody here. Look, I need not wait to *see* the film to pronounce my observations, given that the subtext is a tent-pole in the marketing they've *been* releasing for many months now.

I'm sure you rushed off to see the photos from the displayed "Batmobile" when they appeared online. The press kit content the studio released hyped the military nature of the vehicle. They were *trying* to associate the iconic Batmobile with the military industrial complex because that's *current* right now (wave the flag and pass the ammunition). The advertising materials released at the time of the Superbowl read, "Bringing fear to those who use fear as a weapon." Now, I'd already gone over this, but it may need underlining if only to illustrate that this is from the promotional content. Is this significant? Batman Begins has a promotional budget of a million dollars. That's a great deal of money being spent to present the subtext I'm talking about. I'd say this is significant to the *studio*, wouldn't you? And given the number of people scrambling to get the next peek at promotional material *here* I'd have to deduce that it's significant to each of *you.*

Maybe DS, you could send an e-mail, or post for that matter, to Warner Brothers and explain to them how the promotional budget they've set is all money wasted as such is "insignificant." I mean, *marketing* never sells a film, does it? Oh wait, it does.

DS, you don't discount my observations, you seem only annoyed that I introduced them. Why is that? I mean, if I bored you, didn't you have the ability to discontinue reading what I had to say moment by moment? I ask that because you suggest that I refrain from this path of conversation. If you don't have to read it, then why do you care if I continue or not? Oh, is it that you don't want anybody else thinking about this stuff?

I notice that some of you acknowledge that *all* films "learn" or borrow from other cinematic entries. They do. And one shade of red borrows from another, and yet, there are *distinctions* between shades. Utterly pointless would it be, and fruitless, to stage an argument that there exists no *levels* of influence between films. A distinction *does* exist between being influenced by another script, and being derivative of another one. Batman Begins looks to be more in the box of the latter rather than the former.

Actually, the more I consider these things, the more I find myself asking, why does the general audience *need* another Batman film? I mean, what would have them feeling like they *need* another adaptation at this time? Part of the *fun* of films like Spider-Man and X-Men were seeing these kinds of characters presented for the *first* time cinematically. We're not even getting a *different* Batman here, but the same old pile of rubber.

I remember a couple of years back being in a theater, and this trailer started. There a narrative told of a crime fighter who had vanished years ago, but now was returning. All the while we heard this Danny Elfmanish score rolling, a benighted mansion was the setting. And then, as the music swelled, we saw the shadow of Batman fall upon the moon washed wall. From the audience I heard someone emit, "Oh God." Someone else yelled out, "BORING!" Still another voice rang out with, "Not ANOTHER one!"

And then we saw, as the camera panned around to reveal who had cast the shadow, that it was Scooby Doo standing there. The audience laughed. Scooby Doo was a hit with a huge weekend. I'd hate to think of what numbers a Batman film just a couple years back would have pulled.

Now, when I saw one of those teasers for Batman Begins, I had another such reaction happen around me. Here we see all this Tibetan stuff, and then Kung Fu, ninjas, an exploding temple, all this stuff that made it seem to be a rip off of House of Flying Daggers. Then we see Bale open the box holding the Batman mask. The guy next to me erupts with, "What the *&#$% is Batman doing in THIS movie??" People laughed at that. And it *was* funny! The movie looked like something you'd expect to be called "American Dragon: Secret Ninja Society" or something lame like that. It wasn't where you'd expect to see Batman. The extreme minority of content showed *anything* that people relate with the character.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure to hear "But you see, the COMICS often visit these things..."

Listen fanboy, the *general audience* has no idea about these things, and do-not-care. It's the general audience that makes these things successful at the box office, not COMIC BOOK READERS no matter what the sycophants at Showest and Wizard World tell you. The general audience sees this and goes, "Where's Jim Carey?" If they want a Kung Fu movie, they'll call Ang Lee. They call Batman when they want overly produced camp content (those Burton films were even camp) with Oscar winners trying to find the right note.

WB is two for three now in flops in as many years. They brought down the curtain on this subgenre the last time, and they're well on their way to doing it again with a stack of high profile flops. Hear 'bout their Wonder Woman gig? Whedon, a man who once scripted a film opening with a man drinking his own urine, is writing and directing this thing. From what he says, sounds like he's starting a really hack off the icon deal. We should be concerned about what Batman is going to bring to what may be a cumulative effect on this beloved sub genre.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[The Xenos]

Well note that marketing and the movie itself are two different things. Maybe the marketing is pushing for a terrorist vs American hero link, but maybe that's not in the film. I can definatley see that happening.

Just don't judge the film on the marketing. I know it's counter-intuative to what society teaches us, but marketing nowadays is getting to be a separate entity for many films, taking on a life of its own. Then again, many films are entrenched with marketing and become just marketing crap themselves. I hope Batman does not fall into this. I've heard that WB let the film do it's thing (well save for inserting Holmes as a love interest). So here's hoping their marketing blitz around the film does not spoil teh film itself.

As for the same looking costume, I am disapointed a bit by this suit in a Year One time frame. Then again they are using realitic current technology. Yes, military technology. Again, if you read the damn comics, you'll see this is what Batman does. It's a great concept. Batman stealing from WayneTech's supply of new military gadgets for his personal war on crime.

"Here we see all this Tibetan stuff, and then Kung Fu, ninjas, an exploding temple, all this stuff that made it seem to be a rip off of House of Flying Daggers. Then we see Bale open the box holding the Batman mask. "

Have you seen the movie or read the script? I don't remember that in the trailes? Anyway, that is awesome as it's taken right from a comic by Denny O'Neil. It's calleed Shaman and ran in Batman legends of the Dark Knight. i belive all they did was mix that story with O'Neil's character of Ra's Al Ghul. Very cool. Before you start mouthing off, maybe you should check up on your comics as they're actually doing a pretty decent representation of the charcter.

"The extreme minority of content showed *anything* that people relate with the character."

Do you not get the whole idea that this is a reintroduciton of the character? All the stuff the public related with Batman is out dated campy crap. That's why everyone's sick of it, the last films were recycled crap from the old 60s Batman. This is something new. It takes the good stuff from teh current comics and puts it on film.

" Yes, yes, yes, I'm sure to hear "But you see, the COMICS often visit these things..." ... Listen fanboy, the *general audience* has no idea about these things, and do-not-care."

You talk about showing us somehting new, yet you say they should show things people already know about Batman. Which is it? The stuff they have no idea about may turn out to be somehting they like. They've seen the old crap enough times, why give them more of the old crap?

"They call Batman when they want overly produced camp content (those Burton films were even camp) with Oscar winners trying to find the right note."

Bullcrap. Again, you're asking why we need a new Batman film and say you want to see somehting new. Yet at the same time you're asking for the same old crap? I don't get what you want here.

I think they're finally making a solid Batman film based on the current books. They're introducing the public to the way the character is NOW. Shumacher made a Batman movie based on the 60s. You could argue Butron's was based on the darker 40s Batman. Batman Begins finally gives us the later 70s and 80s Batman (which current continity is based on) with a more current setting. I say it's a great time for such a film.

"Hear 'bout their Wonder Woman gig? Whedon, a man who once scripted a film opening with a man drinking his own urine, is writing and directing this thing. From what he says, sounds like he's starting a really hack off the icon deal. "

Yeah, Whedon wrote some of Waterworld, but he kept getting demands for rewrites from Costner, so you really can't write that one off as his fault. Plus he wasn't the only writer on it. Waterworld was a bit bloated studio and marketing movie. If you're followed Whedon since then, say the last ten years, you'll see how that experience has made him very much against such big bloated projects. Having someone like Whedon in charge is a good thing. Not saying that the movie will be good, it could still go south, but Whedon on Wonder Woman should be a good thing.

-Xenos

[This message has been edited by The Xenos (edited 03-21-2005).]

[Sonic1002]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FireStormTrooper:
<B>Speaking of Ra's al Ghul, did anyone else notice that one the official non-teaser one-sheet for BATMAN BEGINS that Ken Watanabe's (Ra's al Ghul) name is not highlighted with the other actors' names by the title? Kinda points to Ra's being a very minor character in the movie ... does he even have a speaking role?

[This message has been edited by FireStormTrooper (edited 03-21-2005).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly from the script and from other soruces online, he never speaks ENGLISH....


------------------
"I won't be just a memory."
-Sephiroth

[ToM]

First of all, the *aim* of any marketing campaign is to provide you a sense of *what* the product is about, what it *is*, and in the best light possible. Consider what a million dollar campaign is attempting. Let's not judge a film by the advertising? That's what's going to get general audiences *wanting* to see the thing. So, we're just to discount what sells the thing as being...unrelated with the film concept? They spend huge sums of money on market research figuring out *how* to present this concept properly *to* the general audience! I mean, come on.

So, WB left this huge project alone, right? Aside from casting someone. Aside from the love story. Hey, what about the rubber costume? Nolan said it was gone. There it was again. What do you think the chances are that WB pressed that? I'd say pretty good. So Nolan says WB left them alone. You know what Nolan *also* said? He said in the USA Today that it was exciting to manage "a character that's never been explained before" in the cimena. Isn't that utter garbage? I mean, Batman has had *six* existing live action feature films over decades, an animated theatrical release, a television series before that, and prior to the tv show, theatrical serials. And Nolan expects us to buy that this character hasn't been "explained" before?

As for the Shaman content, you're missing the point. The *audience*, the general audience saw that trailer, and Batman seemed out of place. Ninjas, Tibet, "Batman On Ice", this isn't what is expected as being Batman. At all. To most people, it seems as though Batman has been dumped into situations and settings that he doesn't belong in.

I see that it frustrates you that I make these observations, and that whole "read the comics before you mouth off" remark illustrates this clearly. But I'm not the problem. The problem is that you need mammoth numbers of people to make a film this costly a success. And they didn't read "Shaman." Batman is iconic, that means he thrives off of specific image associations and themes that make up the terms the general public understand him in. Change that too much, and what gives him his strength, accessibility, being iconic, melts away. And at this point, being an icon is all Batman has left with a film audience. Allowing for him to be misidentified is risky.

Pretty decent representation of the character? Bruce Wayne plots out murder suicide. Yeah, that's the Bruce Wayne millions have come to know. Oh wait, no, it isn't.

Batman needed a new look, yet, retains the iconic nature. He needed current themes, but he can't be bogged down in content, like locations, that *disguise* the character known to audiences.

"Whedon wasn't the only writer on it" should be the mantra anybody employs when talking about him. His sycophants trumpet "Toy Story" as an example of his work, but he only wrote a *tiny* portion of what emerged on screen. This is true of most everything, but the flop, Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Some movies turned out to be solid, others duds, with people liking to pick and choose what Whedon should be given laurels for. But, really, his material on screen is pretty minor. X-Men 2 was better without him than X-Men was *with* him. He's a coin toss as to his real feature film merit at this point. Who can say how good he really is? Waterworld stunk, so did his Alien entry, who knows.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

ToM:


You are REALLY reaching here and that is an understatement. Your speculations about similarities of Batman Begins and other movies are largely just pattern recognition behavior on your part. The rest are trivial generalities right up there with "Spiderman has a costume! Batman ALSO has a costume! Coincidence? I think not!".

RE: Batman Begins as thinly veiled "War on Terror" propaganda.

Again, ANYONE can start with a presupposition of conspiracy adn then work backwards to "find the evidence" that supports their a priori conclusion.

For example:

Ocean's Eleven and the War on Terror.

Andy Garcia plays a "swarthy" nemesis who relies on terror and subordinates to achieve his goals of conquest. George Clooney and pals are a microcosmic "U.S. Army" who thwart Garcia's character through their use of intelligence/recon', modern technology etc.

Not buying it? You would if you were convinced that OCean's Eleven were an attempt to propagandize the U.S. efforts in the war on terror!


Re: The Bat-suit


Let's face the fact that the ONLY good thing to come of the 1989 batman film was the costume. I don't care if it was made of gelatin! It looked good and if they had put Keaton in anything else besides Ringwood's brilliant costume, even the fanboys would have seen this movie for the joke it was.

Having said that, I am not sure where you are getting the idea that they did not improve on the costume for Begins? Everything I have read indicates Bat's is able to turn his head now and that the overall look of Bale in costume is a big improvement.

Re: Blade going out with a whimper


Blade:Trinity bombed because it was terrible. Terrible script. Blatant attempt to jumpt start a new franchise(the Nightstalkers) at the expense of (what should have been)the central character. WHen Holloywood has a success with an R-Rated film, at some point, without fail, they attempt to do a PG-13 sequel. It's called "Gearing for mass audience". This always results in a far inferior movie(to the original). We see this with the Mad Max movies, The Terminator, Conan, and a slew of other film franchises.
Terminator 2 was not as bad as Trinity but it was not as good as The Terminator either.

The failure of Trinity had nothing to do with any complex social dynamic involving the particvular void that comic book heroes might fill in the popular psyche. It was just a crap movie.

Also, the original Blade, while one of my favorite C2Fs of all time(well, one of the 4 or 5 I would give a positive review of), to say that it was without camp is ridiculous! There was a LOT of camp in Blade(e.g. A black man in a trenchcoat with weapons sticking out all over beats a uniformed policeman into submission in broad daylight as window shoppers mill about in the background), just not as much as there was in Trinity.


To sum up, you can pull any two scripts from roughly the same genre and find a "conspiracy" of similarities between them, regardless of whether anyone was trying to rip off anyone else. Humans are pattern-seeking animals and we will ALWAYS find such "evidence", whether it exists or not.

The Batmobile in Begins is militaristic-looking because Goyer and Nolan were borrowing from The Dark Knight Returns. Unlike previous bat-films, this one is actually influenced by the comic books and being crafted by comic book fans who are familair with the source.
The romance between Bat's and what's-her-name is taken from Batman: Year Two.
THe Scarecrow is being used, NOT becuase he is analogous to middle eastern terrorists but becuase he is one of the staples of the Batman mythos who had not already been used in previous films. The sequel will feature the Joker because Goyer and Nolan will have successfully snuck the re-invention of the Bat-continuity past those who would otherwise have threatened boycotts before the film ever started shooting if they(the producers) came right out and said "We are throwing out the Burton films and starting over."

This film features the Lt. Gordon of the comics(played by Oldman) and not the blubbery Pat Hingle farce. This film features the Batman from the comics(played by Bale) rather than the no-chin, mullet-haired Michael Keaton.
Could this film still end up sucking? Totally! It is possible that this movie will be another crappy bat-film just as the last four were. But let's watch the movie first rather than fishing for superficial similarities to other movies or political issues. Believe me, as anyone here knows, I will be the FIRST to hammer this movie if it does suck. I am almost alone in pointing out the ridiculous flaws in such fanboy fav's as The Crow and 1989's Batman(and a slew of other overappreciated wastes of celuloid).

[ToM]

Pattern recognition, huh? Yeah, nearly *all* superhero films since '78 feature elevated trains being derailed in the middle of a major metropolis. Wait, now that I think back, they don't. None of them do, well, aside from Spider-Man 2 and now Batman Begins.

Hey, don't all superhero features end with the hero declining the love of his love inteest because he has to fight crime? Now that I think about it, only two of them do, Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

Hey, now, don't all superhero movies feature flashbacks to childhood where the hero and his love interest were children together, all this taking place while a hostile take over of his labs is undergoing? Nope. Just Hulk and Batman Begins. And you know what? We could do this all day long.

Look, we could even coundown the running time if we wanted to, to where *both* Spider-Man and Batman leap down onto the hood of a car to confront "a bad guy." The superheroics start at nearly the same point to the second, do they not? I mean, come on! Do you honestly think WB just decided this was the time to release a Batman film because...it just was? Naturally they're looking at the trends, and trying to tap into them. And emulation is often a portion of that, if not the rule. The question is only a matter of how extensive the emulation. Because beyond a certain point it becomes derivative. We haven't seen this stuff in a Batman film, but we have-in-everything-else.

As for the notion that anybody can take a presupposition and work backwards till they have something, what's your example worth? If the subtext *is* there, and we're seeing it in the advertising, then it *is* there. That said, it hardly matters if you can go backwards and *attempt* to *paint* something another shade than it is. You neglect to mention that Batman *is* *literally* fighting a war, something not found in Ocean's Eleven. In that film, there are no *direct* associations to the US military industrial complex. Batman Begins is laregly set *directly within* that complex. I mean, please.

As for the bat-suit, you talk up the fact that Batman can turn his neck. I mean, for ten years the Batman costumes based on the '89 film can accomplish *that* feat. Turning your neck is hardly leaping a tall building in a single bound. What they *have* done, well, it's beneath the standards of modern cinema of this sort. It need not have looked like rubber, or so *entirely* rubber. And it could have been form fitting, not bunching up like some skindiving suit caught in the jaws of a shark.

Blade Trinity wasn't a mess becaused it was PG-13. Hell, the firts Blade is cut down to that level for television and is still a solid film. The script was just drek. And the time for that character was just over and finished.

You say that Blade Trinity didn't fail because of the pop cultural condition the public psyche was in. Okay. But you'll notice that unlike the last installment, hardly anybody showed up in the first place to find *out* that it was utter toss. So, you know, why was that? I mean, according to you it couldn't possibly have been because people had seen enough of the character, right?

Look, *good* movies fail because of the state of the pop cultural head. The Wizard of Oz was a critical and commercial failure in its day. It only became a classic on television. Time, medium, role, all these are contributors. This is why bad films can be blockbusters, and good films can die ignoble box office deaths.

Your examples of camp in Blade are...not that. Those aren't example sof camp, just poor filmic logic.

To close, there's a reason *nobody* ever claims that the striking similitudes between The Incredibles and The Fantastic Four are merely coincidence. And the same Bat-fans online who defend against all this same stuff are in that crowd. You raise and lower the bar for yourselves like it was Jones Town or something.

What you seem to be missing is that "intelligent" and "dark" aren't enough. You're all just pleased these two words are in the vocabulary of the producership after the bubblegum gothics you had the last couple times around. But Ang Lee, a vastly superior artist than either Nolan or Goyer, came out with an intelligent and dark Hulk film, and missed the mark. It was just the wrong movie for the character, it wasn't what the audience knew, or wanted. It misfired with one hundred and sixty million. Batman Begins costs even *more* than Hulk. Dark, possibly intelligent, it can still be all wrong.

Hey, glad we're on that subject! Hulk was *another* film to directly reference the homeland security culture, and it alienated audiences. The "hero" is fighting the oppressive national security forces (what General Ross is serving as while hunting down the Banners). Later, while Banner, an innocent civilian is being illegally detained, and for that matter exploited by the military industrial complex, "Bush" and "Rice" are shown to be on page with *all* of it. They know an innocent American citizen is being tortured and exploited, and they're all for it (Bush is off fishing, having a jolly time, and demonstrates what little ethical concerns he can muster on vacation).

Hulk running around desert locales to what most patrons took to be "Arabic sounding music" didn't exactly sit right in the stomach of a lot of folks (I thought it sounded more Chinese, but hey, that's just me).

So, now Batman walks down this slippery slope, all safe and uncompromising in his rubber.

Oh hey, don't'cha just love the way they've pirated the origin of The Shadow and plopped it down into this Batman thing? He goes to the "temple" to train, and instantly attacks "the master", who easily foils him. You know, and that's right out of that awful Alec Baldwin The Shadow feature from the 90's.

I don't remember Batman in the comics becoming a criminal to learn the criminal arts. But hey, the Shadow is *also* another playboy who vanishes in the far east (in the movie, Tibet) lives a life as a criminal, meets his "master" at a temple, is defated by him, humbled, trained. And you know, later on, someone from his past, from that very temple, arrives at his city that he's become a shadowy crime fighter in, and becomes his nemesis.

Been there, doen that years and years ago!

Seriously, are you honestly convinced this isn't all looking just like copy and paste? Do you really think there wasn't another way to go? Batman: Mask of The Phantasm is, to my tastes anyway, really the best Batman theatrical adaptation thus far. And it would've made a great live action feature. Instead, we get this shambling Frankenstein mass of various genre scripts and political pandering.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

Pattern recognition, huh? Yeah, nearly *all* superhero films since '78 feature elevated trains being derailed in the middle of a major metropolis. Wait, now that I think back, they don't. None of them do, well, aside from Spider-Man 2 and now Batman Begins.


Spiderman 2 did not feature any derailed trains if you want to get all nit-picky http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/smile.gif.
Also, I am not sure how you did this but you completely missed the point. If EVERY C2F had featured a train wreck of some sort then the "copy/paste" would have been as obvious as you claim it is. I do not see how you can argue the converse, that since a 'train scene' only occurs in a few movies including Batman Begins then 'Begins' must be copying other movies?!?
Trains play a role, not only in the Batman orgin stories such as Year One but they are just a common element in action/superhero stories in general because we are, after all talking about a metropolis here and a train/subway makes a natural target for ne'er do wells throughout.


Hey, don't all superhero features end with the hero declining the love of his love inteest because he has to fight crime?


This same logic suggests that Spiderman ripped off the Batman comics because it was done first in Batman Year Two(highly reccomended reading). This is part of Bats' orgin guy. Are you suggesting they put out another crap-fest like the '89 Batman movie and ignore the source because there are commonalities that can be found within the genre itself?
Hey! Spiderman wore a costume right? Batman ALSO wears a costume! Conspiracy! They are both copying Superman!


Now that I think about it, only two of them do, Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hey, now, don't all superhero movies feature flashbacks to childhood where the hero and his love interest were children together, all this taking place while a hostile take over of his labs is undergoing?[/i]

Again, the flashback device is used extensively in comic books and has been a staple since Frank Miller and Alan Moore exploded onto the scene. Batman Begins, being possibly the first Bat-film to use the comics as source, is not surpisingly also using this plot device.

Having said that, I still do not see the Hulk comparison as anything but silly. The Hulk was both a critical and commerical disaster. If the producers were going to use the "copy/paste" method of screen writing then they would probably steer way clear of Ang Lee's stink-bomb.


Nope. Just Hulk and Batman Begins. And you know what? We could do this all day long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sure you could. That is what pattern recognition is all about. I could take pretty much any two movies from similar genres and make the same case you are making using your logic. It would not convince anyone but ME but hey...

Case in point:

Lethal Weapon is a rip-off of Tango and Cash.

*Tango and Cash features two buddy cops, one of which is a tough guy and the other is even tougher.
*Both films are chock full of comedy, interspersed with moments of seriousness/drama.
*Both films' main characters are maverick cops who use unorthodox methods to do their jobs.

*Both films feature a main villain who must be defeated.

*Both films feature car chases and car wrecks(not unlike the train wrecks of spiderman and Batman Begins)

Need I go on? I have only seen tango and Cash once, about 15 years ago so I am sure I could really milk that puppy if I wanted to.

You get the point.

[quote]Look, we could even coundown the running time if we wanted to, to where *both* Spider-Man and Batman leap down onto the hood of a car to confront "a bad guy."

Not until we see the movie we can't! If you had read the script for 1989's Batman, you would have been laughing at some of the lines of dialogue(re: "I AM the night!") but though these lines appear in the final draft of the script, they do not appear in the movie. Things change and you will not have the faintest idea what the running time is for Begins until after the film is edited(done but you are basing your views on a leaked version of the script so this is moot) and released.

I don't care if both films were exactly the same length down to the second! Occam's razor would still suggest coincidence over conspiracy.


The superheroics start at nearly the same point to the second, do they not?

Hmmm...both Spiderman AND the Fantastic four feature futuristic science/technology and supervillains. Both feature ordinary people transfromed by freak accidents into superhumans! Fantastic Four ripped off Spiderman!

We will know what point the superheroics start when the film is released and not a second before. Even if what you claim were true this is fallacy of distraction on your part as you are taking a relatively unimportant similarity and using it to butress a position that is not rationally justified. I have no doubt I could find two movies where someone is shot at precisely the same hour/minute/second into each movie but so what?


I mean, come on! Do you honestly think WB just decided this was the time to release a Batman film because...it just was?


No I do not think that and I don't see why I should!? I think they have been working to release this film for the last several years(Aronofsky was originally hired to direct and co-write the film) and they finally got all the pieces together. I also think WB has realised that when critical and commerical disaster has occured it has usually been when movie-makers stray from the comic-book source material(as all the previous Batman movies did) and recent succeses of the X-Men and Spiderman have been largely due to the characters sticking to their comic roots(for the most part).

Pretty ballsy for them to even consider tossing out the previous continutity to revamp the franchise.


Naturally they're looking at the trends, and trying to tap into them.

An oversimplification at best. If they were just looking at trends then bad music and reality TV would figure prominently into the plot. Nolan has pretty much gotten Carte blanche with the character(insofar as anyone could hope to get from a studio like WB) and that, along with his reputation suggests this is an honest attempt to do the character justice. There is no compelling reason to think that Nolan and Goyer would even consider being a part of the sham you are suggesting. And what of Morgan Freeman, Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Liam Neeson and Michael Caine? These are not B-list actors who will jump at the chance to do crap because they cannot get work! These are the cream of the crop and they did not agree to do the film until after they read the script.


And emulation is often a portion of that, if not the rule.

Yeah, painting a portrait of Gotham, NY as a city which has no trains, whose heroes wear no masks or ever jump onto cars to confront baddies and have no ties to other characters rememberd in flashback would be pretty original.It would also be a bad idea and make for a sucky movie. I don't see the producers demanding such conventions be removed just to appease your paranoid conspiracy theories.


The question is only a matter of how extensive the emulation. Because beyond a certain point it becomes derivative.


All films are derivative.

We haven't seen this stuff in a Batman film, but we have-in-everything-else.

There is a lot we have not seen in a batman film! Competent scripting, good acting, decent casting, impressive fight choreography, good direction, sensible scene transition etc.

I say that it is high time we see these things included in a Batman film.

As for the notion that anybody can take a presupposition and work backwards till they have something, what's your example worth? If the subtext *is* there, and we're seeing it in the advertising, then it *is* there. That said, it hardly matters if you can go backwards and *attempt* to *paint* something another shade than it is.


Considering the quote in your sig', I am surprised you have such difficulty with this. The reason why presupposing a conclusion and working backwards to find the evidence is wrong is the same for movie critque as it is for crime solving or conspiracy theory analysis. If a detective decides that suspect 'A' is guilty of murder and then views the evidence with this presupposition, he can easily come to a false positive and arrest the wrong man because it is always possible to retrofit the evidence one finds to support the a priori conclusion.
Another example is the JFK assassination. All evidence we have points conclusively to Oswald commiting the assassination and working alone. But that does not stop people like Oliver Stone and the like from "finding" evidence to support his conclusions.

If you presuppose that Batman Begins is a shallow attempt to cash in on successful trends in marketing, then you will find your evidence just as you have, even if your presupposition is completely false and unfounded. In other words that "evidence" would exist regardless of whether your conclusion is true or not.
But if your conclusions were true we would expect to see much BETTER...more conclusive evidence than what you are presenting. Not irrelevant nonsense about how far into the film before Batman lands on a crook or puts on a mask!?


You neglect to mention that Batman *is* *literally* fighting a war, something not found in Ocean's Eleven.


No he is not. That is an interpretation. An analogous comparison. He is a vigilante out attacking criminals. If you can characterize his fight as a "war" then I can take the same poetic liscense and call the conflict between Danny Ocean's crew and the casino owner a "war".


In that film, there are no *direct* associations to the US military industrial complex. Batman Begins is laregly set *directly within* that complex. I mean, please.

First of all, what script are you reading that has Batman as an enlisted soldier in the war on terror/Iraq/Afghanistan?

Secondly, let's say that Batman WAS such a US soldier. Does that in itself make this a war on terror propaghanda film? If so then Bruce Willis has starred in some real crap in recent years!


As for the bat-suit, you talk up the fact that Batman can turn his neck.


I did not "talk up" any such thing. I said that in general, we have no reason to think the suit has not been improved upon and I mentioned the fact that he can now turn his head as one example of such improvements.

Hyperbole is not your friend.


I mean, for ten years the Batman costumes based on the '89 film can accomplish *that* feat.


And they also featured "bat-nipples". Your point?

Turning your neck is hardly leaping a tall building in a single bound. What they *have* done, well, it's beneath the standards of modern cinema of this sort. It need not have looked like rubber, or so *entirely* rubber.


Okay, I get it. You don't like the suit. I do. Nothing could have been as bad as the gray and blue campyness from the comic books! If I had my way then the Spiderman films would have used the black costume as well.


And it could have been form fitting, not bunching up like some skindiving suit caught in the jaws of a shark.

And on Micahel Keaton's physique "form fitting" would have been disastrous!

Blade Trinity wasn't a mess becaused it was PG-13.


No one said it was. This is a strawman( go HERE (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies) to learn more. What I said was that when Hollywood has a hit with an R-rated movie, they tend to forget the whole reason the movie is R-rated. They think that "Hey! A LOT of people enjoyed this serious action film about a guy hunting and killing vampires. If we tone it down to PG-13 we will have X more people flocking to the theatres!". What they forget is that you cannot just take something that appeals to one movie goer(like horror movies or violent action films), replace the drama and bloodshed with one liners, and still attract the same viewer pool that enjoyed the first film and also impress those who will go to PG-13 movies. What ends up happening is you have a watered down horror movie that will neither appeal to horror fans nor non-horror fans.


Hell, the firts Blade is cut down to that level for television and is still a solid film.


Actually, not much in the way of graphic violence is removed in TV airings of R-rated movies nowadays(mostly just language and nudity) and we can probably thank CSI for that. In any case, whether you or I still enjoy the edited version or not is a subjective opinion.


The script was just drek. And the time for that character was just over and finished.

Had nothing to do with the character of Blade being "finished". He was barely even in the movie! Where they went wrong was in trying to turn this into "Blade and his Amazing Friends". The film might as well have opened with a cheesy kung fu montage introducing Hannibal King and Whistler's daughter ala 70's cop-shows with big stylised "Hannibal KING!" flashing up during the freeze frame.

You say that Blade Trinity didn't fail because of the pop cultural condition the public psyche was in. Okay. But you'll notice that unlike the last installment, hardly anybody showed up in the first place to find *out* that it was utter toss.


They didn't need to. Most movie-goers are familiar with the pattern of 'Successful action-horror film =&gt; Successful action-horror sequel =&gt; Crappy action-comedy that introduces protagonist's "funny buddies".
You can read all about how crappy a film is before you go see it also. That said, Trinity still opened at #1 the week it was released. It does not take more than a week for word of mouth to kill a film.


So, you know, why was that? I mean, according to you it couldn't possibly have been because people had seen enough of the character, right?


Enough with the hypoerbole okay?

Look, *good* movies fail because of the state of the pop cultural head. The Wizard of Oz was a critical and commercial failure in its day. It only became a classic on television. Time, medium, role, all these are contributors. This is why bad films can be blockbusters, and good films can die ignoble box office deaths.


What is your point and what does it have to do with anything I said?

Your examples of camp in Blade are...not that. Those aren't example sof camp, just poor filmic logic.

*Sigh* What is camp if not poor film logic? The difference in camp between Blade and Blade:Trinity was one of degree. Camp does not always come about intentionally(in fact it rarely does so). Roger Corman's early films were some of the campiest movies ever made and he was trying to make solid movies! Same goes for Ed Wood!

To close, there's a reason *nobody* ever claims that the striking similitudes between The Incredibles and The Fantastic Four are merely coincidence.


The Incredibles was a direct satire of superheroes like the FF. The "similarities" were intended and obvious! That is the point of satire!


And the same Bat-fans online who defend against all this same stuff are in that crowd. You raise and lower the bar for yourselves like it was Jones Town or something.


*Sigh* False analogy(another logical fallacy). Whatever similarities we will see in Batman Begins to any other C2F are not comparable to the spoof of the Incredibles on superheroes in general.

Your argument here(and I am being generous calling it an argument) is akin to saying "Those who would deny the similarities of Spy Hard to the Bond films are in the same camp with those who deny the similarities between E.T. and Aliens!".

What you seem to be missing is that "intelligent" and "dark" aren't enough. You're all just pleased these two words are in the vocabulary of the producership after the bubblegum gothics you had the last couple times around.


No, you are wrong again. The 1989 Batman had the same crap being said about it to the point of provoking a ton of T.V. talk shows(Larry King etc.) to do episodes about how "Comics have grown up?". They were calling 1989's Batman "Intelligent and Dark" and it was neither.
But like that movie, there WILL be a fan-boy element who will not notice if this film is complete crap whereas I will be the first one to shove it in a paper bag, light it on fire and drop it on WB's doorstep if it is!

Just because such fanboys likely exist does not mean the movie WILL be a piece of crap.


But Ang Lee, a vastly superior artist than either Nolan or Goyer, came out with an intelligent and dark Hulk film, and missed the mark.


?!?!?!?


Are you out of your freaking skull?!? That film was not anywhere NEAR "intelligent"! My God f***ing "Joe Dirt" was smarter than that movie! I could go on for four hours pointing out all of the completely idiotic, head-scratching nonsense in that film! Ang Lee only hinted at being overated with Crouching Tiger... but with the Hulk he left no doubt! How is he a "vastly superior artist"?!? For making crap ass Kung Fu flicks that only differ from old kung fu flicks in that they employ more modern special effects?
The Wedding Banquet and The Ice Storm were pretty good flicks but not better than Memento.

Let's look at just one or two things for kicks...


Banner's father(played by Nolte) is thought to be a highly dangerous madman and so the government tries to keep tabs on his son when he is released. Still he manages to set up a laboratory(on a janitors wage. Oh yeah! And he somehow gets a job doing custodial work at Bruce Banner's lab! Nice recon' there Government!) in which he creates mutant poodles capable of wiping out entire police precincts if he were to command them to!

But wait! it gets worse! The aforementioned madman manages to walk his mutant poodles with him while at work while he cleans the labs and snoops for information about his son(and yet the department of Homeland Security can knock peoples' doors down over questionable emails and such?!)
And finally, Banner Sr.'s madness is confirmed and he is arrested as his son is finally contained after hulking out and rampaging through the dessert and what do the military do? They allow the both of them to sit just feet apart and enjoy a little verbal confrontation. Actually old dad is allowed to walk about in manacles and freely allowed to get in Banner's face and say inciteful things to provoke another transformation even after they just barely managed to subdue him after his last incident of turning into the Hulk!

That is just so beyond my suspension of disbelief threshold that I did not know whether to laugh or cry!

It was just the wrong movie for the character, it wasn't what the audience knew, or wanted.


Who cares what the audience knew??? They knew that old TV show with Lou Ferigno and basing the movie on THAT would have been stupid beyond belief! The public at large mostly knows of Adam West's Batman or the Tim Burton crap-movies. Should we keep churning out that stuff to keep the know-nothing public from getting confused?


It misfired with one hundred and sixty million. Batman Begins costs even *more* than Hulk. Dark, possibly intelligent, it can still be all wrong.

No one is saying that "dark = good film" but with intelligent, you cannot go wrong! You make an intelligent Batman movie and you have a success(at least a critical one.)

Hey, glad we're on that subject! Hulk was *another* film to directly reference the homeland security culture, and it alienated audiences.


False correlation. The Hulk displeased audiences because it was stupid! Had nothing to do with any "homeland security culture". If the re-election of Shrub taught us anything it's that most people here in America support his actions starting two wars and pissing off our allies. They are unlikely to get perturned by the things you percieve(or even see these same "patterns" that you do).


The "hero" is fighting the oppressive national security forces (what General Ross is serving as while hunting down the Banners). Later, while Banner, an innocent civilian is being illegally detained, and for that matter exploited by the military industrial complex, "Bush" and "Rice" are shown to be on page with *all* of it. They know an innocent American citizen is being tortured and exploited, and they're all for it (Bush is off fishing, having a jolly time, and demonstrates what little ethical concerns he can muster on vacation).

Were Bush and Rice in the film? I don't remember any of that?

Hulk running around desert locales to what most patrons took to be "Arabic sounding music" didn't exactly sit right in the stomach of a lot of folks (I thought it sounded more Chinese, but hey, that's just me).

Listen, you ARE speaking just for yourself. Find me ONE person who brought up such criticisms/concerns other than yourself then you can speak for him/her. But until then invoking this ad numeri argument that "lots of folks saw this!", especially when I doubt you can find a single person to come here and support your allegation, is just laughable!

My sister works at the theatre one of my best friends manages. I get to see a lot of movies and talk to a lot of people about those movies. I have never heard ANYONE until you just now claim that the Hulk's desert locales or the soundttrack was evocative of Arabians or the war on terror!?!

Again, the Hulk(of the comic books)'s orgins take place in the dessert. That is where the gamma bomb was tested that resulted in Banner's transformation into a monster.

So, now Batman walks down this slippery slope, all safe and uncompromising in his rubber.

Methinks you are trolling for political arguments here. Your reasoning is as poor as I have ever come across and I spend a good 25-40 hours a week debating religious fundemntalists on the net!

Oh hey, don't'cha just love the way they've pirated the origin of The Shadow and plopped it down into this Batman thing?


OMG!! Do you know ANYTHING about comics or the Batman? He(the original Detective Comics character created by Finger and Kane) was BASED on the Shadow!! Same as Superman was based on Doc Savage and Miracleman was based on Captain Marvel! All modern characters are derivative! You act like Batmans's orgin is something new they just threw together for this movie!? The creators of the Batman have never denied his inspiraction came from The Shadow! Every "Looking back on the Batman" type frontpiece ever written mentions this fact!


He goes to the "temple" to train, and instantly attacks "the master", who easily foils him. You know, and that's right out of that awful Alec Baldwin The Shadow feature from the 90's.


Yeah but that is NOT from the Shadow proper. It is something invented for that movie as they felt it important to solidify the character's background/orgin since there was much confusion over the whole Kent Allard/Lamont Cranston bugaboo.
The Batman story that appears in Begins is taken from his comic book orgins(unlike the Batman film from 89). Read Year One and Denny Oneil's "Shaman" sometime.

I don't remember Batman in the comics becoming a criminal to learn the criminal arts.

He studied everything from KGB training to esoteric martial arts in the comics. As for becoming a criminal, beyond being a vigilante who was at one time or another hunted by Gotham's finest, I have no idea what you are talking about.


But hey, the Shadow is *also* another playboy who vanishes in the far east (in the movie, Tibet) lives a life as a criminal, meets his "master" at a temple, is defated by him, humbled, trained.


Batman does not lead the life of a criminal but that is beside the point. You are reaching again. Grasping at straws.

Check this out:

The Blue Beetle first appeared in the 1930's. He is a costumed crimefighter with bizarre powers(the orignal Beetle, Dan Garret not Ted Cord, was) with a 'bug' motif. He wears a red and blue costume.
Steve Ditko was the artist/writer who re-created the Blue Beetle for Charlton comics in the 60's. Ditko was also the co-creator of Spiderman!

This means that Spiderman is a direct copy/paste job, ripping off the Blue Bettle!


See how easy that was? Right off the top of my head!

It was also stupid and to make that case I have to ignore all of the DISsimilar aspects of each character while overemphasizing insignifigant similarities.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>And you know, later on, someone from his past, from that very temple, arrives at his city that he's become a shadowy crime fighter in, and becomes his nemesis.

Been there, doen that years and years ago!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, if you are looking for similarities, no matter how insignifigant, you can find them. What's really dumb is that you could have found such similarities between Batman and some character he has no ties to but you chose the Shadow who is as intertwined with the Batman's orgins as Godzilla is with Japanese monster movies!

Seriously, are you honestly convinced this isn't all looking just like copy and paste?

I am earnestly UNCONVINCED of YOUR claims! I am a skeptic(re: critical thinker) and I encounter conspiracy theories by the bushel. You will have to do MUCH better in substantiating your assertions.


Do you really think there wasn't another way to go? Batman: Mask of The Phantasm is, to my tastes anyway, really the best Batman theatrical adaptation thus far.


No disagreement there but it does not help that the only films we have to compare it with are the previous four schlock-fests from Burton and Shumacher. Ironically, Phantasm tells much the same story as Begins(replacing the Phantasm(who was itself based on the Reaper) with Scarecrow and/or Ras Al Gul).

And it would've made a great live action feature. Instead, we get this shambling Frankenstein mass of various genre scripts and political pandering.

Well...we will see. If it turns out to be crap then so be it but your arguments in here are not supportive of this.

Captain Skeptic


[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-24-2005).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-24-2005).]

[The Xenos]

Just a few replies and comments.

by Tom: "Pattern recognition, huh? Yeah, nearly *all* superhero films since '78 feature elevated trains being derailed in the middle of a major metropolis. Wait, now that I think back, they don't. None of them do, well, aside from Spider-Man 2 and now Batman Begins."

Didn't someone say eailer that the train scene was in the Batman script before Spider-man 2 was out? Anyway, filming in Chicago and having Gotham somewhat Chicago based, I belive it works a bit better for Batman, especially as there is no damn train like that in NYC. My friends from aorund NYC, as well as myself, were laughing afterwards about the fictional train existing in the movie. Plus, dealing with Batman as a crime drama, I'd be more likley to compare it to train chase scenes like in The French Connection. Though there it was more on the inside. Still, train chase scenes are nothing new.

As for the love interest, I totally forgot it was taken from the Year Two story. I acutally feel a lot better about it now that I hear that. I was putting up at stink aobut that myself. My concern now, of course, is that they're trying to mix in too many things. Year One, Year Two, the Tibet thing from Shaman, Ra's, Scarecrow, etc. Can Nolan and co make this into a good cohesive film? I know Daredevil was sounding good with all the stuff they tried to throw into it from the books, but it ended up a bit mess.

Again, for the love of *($#, all these nit picks of yours are missing the forrest for the trees. Have youe ven considered the movie might be good and successful, it might be more than the sum of these little parts you pick at, both as a good film and as a movie hit? I want to see how the movie works in its entirety.

Also, Tom, where are you coming from with this 'stuff hapens at the same time stamp' stuff? Are you basing these off a script online? Did you already see Batman Begins? Really, where are you getting this evidence from? You honestly sound like you have already seen it.

Oh and btw, I really liked the Ang Lee Hulk film, but even I gotta admit it had its flaws and was really not a good idea for a Hulk film for all fans and not really for the public. Also, the Hulk vs the military has been in the damn comic book since its beginning. General Ross has always been against Hulk like that.

by CaptainSkeptic: "Ironically, Phantasm tells much the same story as Begins(replacing the Phantasm(who was itself based on the Reaper) with Scarecrow and/or Ras Al Gul)."

Oh crap, I comepletely forgot about that connection. I think I remember hearing Phantasm was based on the character sometime after seeing the film, but I forgot about it.

-Xenos

[ToM]

I see Skeptic, that you make a few serious errors with regard to comic history here that I think need find correction before we proceed further. You say that Batman was patterned after "The Shadow", or that is to say, inspired by that character. You've been reading too many fanboy directed materials rather than serious examinations of the pop culture of the period.

The *true* origins of the Batman character are shadowy and vague with the distinctions between the "established" story, and the true details smudged up by time and fading memory. But certain things, things not generally cited, are known. Batman arouse as a reaction to the success of *Superman*, not The Shadow.

The company who would later publishe "Bob Kane's" Batman were interested in a comic book hero after the fashion of Superman. This company produced pulp magazines before that period, and featured in one of their series, a magazine called "Spicy Fiction" (the very bottom of the sleazy barrel of pulp magazines of the period) a character called "Batman." Now, the pulp magazine character was unlike the one we know today. He was literally a "human bat." This Batman was actually a bat with a human brain.

So, when Superman is all the rage, and the publisher wants something like him, they get Bob Kane "creating" a Batman for the *comics.* His version is actually a red and blue costumed figure, not a dark winged hero of the night. Note the red and blue costume? Kane is sourcing *Superman* for this character he's been hired to formulate, not The Shadow. Nobody is very happy with the red and blue look for Batman, and Bill Finger gets called in to work on this project. It is *Finger*, not Kane, who comes up with the dark cowl and cape, the very image we see to this day (which is nearly always credited to Kane).

All this talk of The Shadow emerges *after* Batman has gone from Red and Blue to his traditional colors. And for that matter, the pulp character that proceeds Batman *isn't* The Shadow, but "Batman", a character *owned* and *published* by the same company as "Kane's" creation.

And that brings us to....Superman. You know, for someone who calls himself a skeptic, you sure swallow the part lines down easily enough. You really buy that old account of Doc Savage being the basis for Superman? On the other hand, it's possible that your knowledge of the pulp age isn't that extensive, and that's not unreasonable. The most likely source for Superman is another pulp character, one by Edgar Rice Burroughs, John Carter, Warlord of Mars.

In this pulp seres, Earthman John Carter is propelled through space, and finds himself on the planet Mars. This world is populated with people exactly like those of (just as is the case with the people of Krypton in the Superman stories). Carter becomes a literal "superman" while on Mars due to the "lower gravity" there. Like Superman, Carter is able to "leap tall buildings in a single bound", thrusting himself into the air beyond the physical abilities of the local inhabitants. It's worth noting that in the early Superman tales, Superman is unable to fly, merely leap up high into he air, just as John Carter demonstrates.

Also, Carter is much faster than the men of Mars, stronger, has much greater stamina as well. All of this is so much akin to Superman that it hardly seems reasonable to ignore the material. Frankly, Superman is the reverse of Carter, a man from another planet who comes to Earth and finds the conditions here allow him superpowers.

You also make a mistake with regard to the origin of The Shadow. The origin featured in the movie *is* the one comissioned by the original publishers of The Shadow pulps.

You're also highly incorrect when you talk about the origins od Spider-Man when comparing him to the Blue Beetle. Stan Lee and *Jack Kirby* originally worked on the Spider-Man concept. Lee wanted to do "Fly-Man" and Kirby advised against it. See, years prior, Kirby had been hired to create superheroes for Archie Comics Line. One of these was a figure called "The Fly." Lee asked Kirby more about him. Seems The Fly had *guns* that fired *webbing* just like Spider-Man's web shooters.

The "web guns" of The Fly seem to have become Spider-Man's "web-shooters." These are effectively guns" that spray webbing, only they're worn on the wrists. Kirby comes up with the insignia for Spider-Man, something which *may* have been developed into the mask we know today, and Ditko was brought in after all of this. BTW, The Blue Beetle is different shades of blue. I don't know what red and blue beetle you've been looking at. (Oh, and Marvel and DC were emulating one another left and right from Fantastic Four #1 right on)

"See how easy that was? Right off the top of my head."

Yeah, and it shows. You still got it all wrong.

Anyway, here you are lecturing me about how I'm "wrong" about who sourced what and from where, and you miss even these famous examples.

By the way, I have to admit that I find it annoying to hear observations on subtext called "conspiracies." The Incredibles runneth ver with subtext, commentary on modern life, social/political trends, the state of our culture of equity, and nothing of it is the result of a conspiracy. Tapping the cultural pulse is *part* of what any serious filmmaker does, and it's what a studio expects from a *pitch*, what's the hook, the angle. I must assume you're some high school student Skeptic, who hasn't taken lit, or ever read much of anything beyond comic books. You know, comics are *not* literature, no matter what they tell you on DVD commentaries. To understand *art*, you have to read *real* books, books on society, artistic movements, even history.

Okay, so let's compare The Shadow film, that Baldwin train wreck, with Batman Begins. Lamont Cranston, wealthy playboy journeys to Tibet, where, he adopts the life of a criminal for more than a decade. He's noticed by the master of the local temple as being exceptional. Taken to a Tibetan temple, after first confronting the master there in a brief combat that leave shim bested, Cranston studies their arts, returns to his city to fight crime.

Now, Batman Begins has this *same* element! Wealthy playboy Bruce Wayne journeys to Asia, lives life as a criminal there for more than a decade. While in Asia, the master of a temple learns of his exceptional abilities and has him brought to his place, resulting in, well exactly the same thing as in The Shadow.

Now, you can talk about "pattern recognition", but these aren't simple generalities. Rather, these are highly specific details. Man, George Lucas *sued* Glenn A. Larson over *lesser* similitude than these.

Something I find amusing is that you consider it "ballsy" for Warners to "restart" their Batman series. Have you watched the films they've put out? Everything since Batman Returns has been a restart of one sort or another. The reason they're doing a restart is that they ran everything else into the ground.

You list such "a-list" actors as Gary Oldham and so on. Let me put you a question, since that awful Dracula movie in the early 90's, what major theatrical presentation has Oldham headlined *successfully* to the screen? Christian Bale, start of American Psycho, a box office misfire, was also the star of Reign of Fire a few years back. This film was one of the most dismal flops of the past decade. Michael Caine, yeah, he's carried box office clought ever since he starred in Jaws 4: The Revenge. That's right, he's the star of a *sequel* to a 3-D movie. Afterward, he did "On Deadly Ground." Ever see that one? He was second banana to Stephen Segal.

Morgan Freeman is always impressive. But neither he, nor Liam Neeson carry the star power of Jim Carey, or Uma Thurman and Aunold back in the days *those* Bat-films emerged. Don't get me wrong, they're all impressive talents. But they aren't people the general audiences are clamoring to see.

BTW, Micheal Caine *has* *will* and *does* jump at the chance to do crappy movies.
You say they're "the cream of the crop who won't work on a film till they've read the script." Well, the crop *they* come from isn't as creamy as that of Jack Nicholson back in '89. And he signed to do that film, one with a horrid script. BTW, every one of these guys in the list has been in a terrible movie, or two. Or five.

Your response regarding Ocean's Eleven is comical at best. You say Batman isn't fighting "a war." But he's using military weapons against criminals, something even the police don't do. Why? That material is fit for *war*, not policework. Got you.

Re: your comments about Ross sitting closley to Banner after he's wrecked the lab. You seem to be under the impression that this is absurd considering they suspect him of being The Hulk. Um, no. They don't think Banner used psychical strength to destroy the lab. They don't even suspect there *is* such a creature at this point in the film. They assume an explosive was used.

Oh, then you say that the public wasn't put off by how the homeland security/Bush/Rice/ military thing was handled in that flick, because Bush was re-elected. Good Lord, I was saying that people didn't like the *negative* light all of these things were treated to. If you can't even follow this, there's no hope of you grasping subtext. You'll just continue to think it doesn't exist.

Oh, Xenos, I see you're back. Thank God.

And to answer your question, the *script* was being worked on *before* Spider-Man 2 was released. No word however on the train being there prior to Spidey2 hitting screens. But remember "this" Batman movie was being worked on for many years. By that I mean the movie WB *would* ultimately release. There were *many* different scripts. BTW, Joel Muckraker had a treatment for *his* next Batman film. And the villain was...you guessed it, The Scarecrow.

As for the fictional train? In *Marvel* NYC such a train exists. And there *was* once an elevated train in NYC. Look, we who live in NY *know* in the business district there is *no* Oscorp plant. And we also know that in the upper 700's of Manhattan there's no distinctive looking "Baxter Building." Nobody I know has ever driven by Stark International either. I'm not sure why the train in Spidey2 is any funnier than these imaginary buildings.

Also, you raise a good question, and a concern of mine, with so much stuff jammed in here, can Nolan make a cohesive picture? He's shown talent with Momento, but come on, that was hardly on this scale of production or so crowded a film. All these people suggesting it'll come off great because it's got a great cast, strong material, and so on, fail to understand the challenges that can face a director trying to pull so many elements into one narrative.

As for Hulk, yes, he's always been at odds with the military. Yet, in the film he's at odds really with the military industrial complex and the chief homeland security office. He's being *exploited* by them, with the bless ing of Bush and Rice (I'm sure you recall the scene with the president and the National Security Adviser on the phone with Ross regarding the containment of "Angry Man.") Concerns over such issues was better handeled in X2, and panne dout for them. It came back on Hulk I think.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[Majik1387]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>Everything since Batman Returns has been a restart of one sort or another. The reason they're doing a restart is that they ran everything else into the ground.


</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I'll give you Batman Forever and Batman & Robin as some of the worst comic movies but Batman Returns got rave reviews and it actually was good. I don't see how each movie was a restart though.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> You list such "a-list" actors as Gary Oldham and so on. Let me put you a question, since that awful Dracula movie in the early 90's, what major theatrical presentation has Oldham headlined *successfully* to the screen?

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since Dracula, he's been in The Scarlet Letter, The Fifth Element, Air Force One, The Contender, Hannibal, and Hrry Potter 3. If those movies aren't headlined succesfully, tell me what is?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>Christian Bale, start of American Psycho, a box office misfire, was also the star of Reign of Fire a few years back. This film was one of the most dismal flops of the past decade.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Christian was also in Shaft, A Midsummer Nights Dream, and Little Women. All non-flops.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>Michael Caine, yeah, he's carried box office clought ever since he starred in Jaws 4: The Revenge. That's right, he's the star of a *sequel* to a 3-D movie. Afterward, he did "On Deadly Ground." Ever see that one? He was second banana to Stephen Segal.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was also in The Cider House Rules, Miss Congeniality, Goldmember, Secondhand Lions, and he's in the upcoming Bewitched movie. Other than Bewitched, those movies were a hit of audiences all over the nation, and all of them were made after On Deadly Ground.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Morgan Freeman is always impressive. But neither he, nor Liam Neeson carry the star power of Jim Carey, or Uma Thurman and Aunold back in the days *those* Bat-films emerged.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before Batman, Uma didn't really have that much star power she does now, the most recognizable movies she starred in before Batman were: The Truth About Cats and Dogs(And she was a supporting character, not main) and Pulp Fiction.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B>Don't get me wrong, they're all impressive talents. But they aren't people the general audiences are clamoring to see.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Morgan and Liam, put togethr, have been in more successful movies than Jim and Uma put together. Arnold has just starred in more succesful movies than either of those stars because he makes mostly action movies cause thats what he good at.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> BTW, Micheal Caine *has* *will* and *does* jump at the chance to do crappy movies.
You say they're "the cream of the crop who won't work on a film till they've read the script." Well, the crop *they* come from isn't as creamy as that of Jack Nicholson back in '89. And he signed to do that film, one with a horrid script. BTW, every one of these guys in the list has been in a terrible movie, or two. Or five.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course these people have been in a terrible movie or more, thats the downfall of their job. They have their ups and downs just like at any other job.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Also, you raise a good question, and a concern of mine, with so much stuff jammed in here, can Nolan make a cohesive picture? He's shown talent with Momento, but come on, that was hardly on this scale of production or so crowded a film. All these people suggesting it'll come off great because it's got a great cast, strong material, and so on, fail to understand the challenges that can face a director trying to pull so many elements into one narrative.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He did great with Momento, and it starred Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano,
Jorja Fox, and Stephen Tobolowsky. He also did great with Insomnia starring Al Pacino, Martin Donovan, Robin Williams, Hilary Swank,Paul Dooley, and Nicky Katt.

[ToM]

Let's talk Oldham. Harry Potter three is a *second* sequel, and showed diminished returns. Critics found themselves asking in the entertainment sections of papers across the country if the character isn't getting a little long in the tooth after the first two. And *he* didn't *headline* the movie. He was a supporting player as he has been for about a decade.

The Scarlet Letter was a mega bomb, and a critical sinkhole (removing the concept of sin from a story where this is the central organizing element is absurd). The Fifth Element was a misfire.

Air Force One was a hit. Was that...ten years ago? no, it was nine. Okay, you have a point....by a single year. And he has Hannibal.

Honestly though, does a hit movie nine years gone, and one going on three years ago make Gary Oldham a box office treasure like Nicholson was, or Phieffer, or Auhnold, or Uma Thurman, or, God help us all, George Clooney? Naturally, no.

Now, Christian Bale was in Shaft. Not a flop? Have you checked out the box office tracking for that film? It wasn't exactly holding the audience in place. A Midsummer's Night Dream? You're surely kidding, right? And do you have any inclination how many years back that was?

Second Hand Lions is a *wonderful movie.* And he was fantastic in that. But it was a box office shrug.

The real question is, are these good actors, and can they service these role well. Certainly! There isn't one among them who isn't of the finest quality. But that isn't the same thing as being an a-list actor anymore. None of them are box office *draws* as the three ring circuses of 90's Bat-films were. Putting these actors in a Batman movie doesn't mean people will just show up because they're in it the way the cast brought people into these things back then. I'm concentrating on the whole package, all the possibilities here. These actors just won't sell this movie on their own. They just aren't big enough to the general audience. Being solid in their roles, that linking in with other elements, that'll bring success, if the rest measures up.

As for Insomnia, I wasn't all that impressed. Still, those movies didn't have as many variables as this one. This is just all the more tricky to pull off. In a way, Fantastic Four has it easier. I mean, sure, it has *more* starring heroes to maybe get wrong and botch up whereas Batman has but a single heroic lead. Yet, the new Batman comes on the heels of a few awful movies. It has to live *up* to being a good movie, no, a *great* movie if it hopes to crack three hundred mill domestic, and it has at least *two* movies to live *down.* Fantastic Four meanwhile, with all the little troubles it has, enters the box office fresh, with no history to live down (because the general audience never saw the Corman craptacular).

Also, this year the box office is jam packed with remakes and relaunches. We've got Star Wars, we've got War of The Worlds, Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, Bewitched, man, even King Kong is back (again). In '03 the box office was hurt by a summer of sequels. Every other film arriving was a sequel, and people were bored, ticket sales slumped. (One irony was that *Hulk* of all movies, when every bean was counted, contributed to pushing the tally over into a successful summer for the industry, much to my shock). Batman Begins has this hurtle to overcome as well. These are *all* obstacles of such proportions that *this* particulat cast cannot get beyond just by showing up for work and having their name sin the credits. The star power they have is just too dim. It has to be good enough to live down the past, *and* compete as a new film itself. Batman Begins has to be *more* than just a good movie to crack three hundred million domestic bucks.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

Boy oh boy...so much misinformation and misunderstanding I don't know where to begin.


You say that Batman was patterned after "The Shadow", or that is to say, inspired by that character.


He was. He was also inspirded by a character called "The Bat" which was either a pulp hero or a silent movie character from the 1920s(or am I thinking of Nosferatu? Another that figured into the developement of Batman).


You've been reading too many fanboy directed materials rather than serious examinations of the pop culture of the period.


And you are full of shit. I have never read ANY "fanboy directed materials". My information comes from various D.C. comics staffers and comic book historians. You can do a Google to find out most of this stuff yourself but since you were too lazy, i will go dig up some links for you when I have time.

Little advice though. If you are going to call some one out in an internet post then make SURE you have your facts striaght adn that you are not reading INTO what is being said.


The *true* origins of the Batman character are shadowy and vague with the distinctions between the "established" story, and the true details smudged up by time and fading memory.
'

Let me guess..."true" in the above usage means "that which I agree with.". Sorry but that doesn't work. Batman was inspired by several things but primaruily pulp characters. In particular The Shadow and The Bat.


But certain things, things not generally cited, are known. Batman arouse as a reaction to the success of *Superman*, not The Shadow.

Superman could probably be given credit for inspiring every superhero ever created but as for having a direct and prominent place in the Bat-man's character developement his role is insignifigant.
The motivation for creating a new superhero probably was rooted in the comercial success of Superman in Action comics but as for how the actual CHARACTER of the Batman came about( dark and violent vigilante with no superpowers fighting a war against street thugs and crimelords) The Shadow is about the single most important reference.

The company who would later publishe "Bob Kane's" Batman were interested in a comic book hero after the fashion of Superman.


Oh I have no doubt that big whigs saw the success of Superman and said "Get me one of those!" but that has nothing to do with how the CHARACTER of the Bat-man was developed.

And Bat-man/Batman was ONLY published by D.C. from the get go. The first appearance of Bats was in Detective Comics(#27? going from memory on all this).

Also, take anything you heard from Bob Kane or any of his confidants with a big grain of salt. Kane was a plagerist, a liar and not much of an artist and his contribution to Batman was as close to nil as you can get and still manage to end up in the credits.

Bill Finger's contributions were substantial(as were Robinson's and later Neal Adams and Denny Oneil and of course much later, Frank Miller ).


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> This company produced pulp magazines before that period, and featured in one of their series, a magazine called "Spicy Fiction" (the very bottom of the sleazy barrel of pulp magazines of the period) a character called "Batman." Now, the pulp magazine character was unlike the one we know today. He was literally a "human bat." This Batman was actually a bat with a human brain.

So, when Superman is all the rage, and the publisher wants something like him, they get Bob Kane "creating" a Batman for the *comics.* His version is actually a red and blue costumed figure, not a dark winged hero of the night. Note the red and blue costume? Kane is sourcing *Superman* for this character he's been hired to formulate, not The Shadow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Do you see where you erred here? We are talking about The batman. Not whatever failed, half-baked ideas got attached to that moniker before the Batman we know and love came about. When I report(just as every D.C. editor that ever lived has reported at one time or another) that Batman was inspired by The Shadow, I am not talking about whatever red and blue costumed superman clone that Bob Kane tried to hack out for whatever company he was working for.

Nobody is very happy with the red and blue look for Batman, and Bill Finger gets called in to work on this project. It is *Finger*, not Kane, who comes up with the dark cowl and cape, the very image we see to this day (which is nearly always credited to Kane).


NOW you're talking!

All this talk of The Shadow emerges *after* Batman has gone from Red and Blue to his traditional colors. And for that matter, the pulp character that proceeds Batman *isn't* The Shadow, but "Batman", a character *owned* and *published* by the same company as "Kane's" creation.


Listen, I can't say for certain who was talking about The SHadow adn at what point they were doing so. I just know that The Shadow came first, The Batman bears striking similarities to him and every comic book historioan adn writer who has had anything to do with Bats cites the Shadow as the predominate influence.

Really this is a tangential issue here and I am not sure why you feel compelled to take this jaunt down a dusty side road that does not lead to the issues we were discussing!?

And that brings us to....Superman. You know, for someone who calls himself a skeptic, you sure swallow the part lines down easily enough. You really buy that old account of Doc Savage being the basis for Superman?


*Chuckle* Note the typical conspiracy theorist rebuttal of "You are just a puppet being manipulated by "THE MAN"!" What possible reason do comic writers and artists have for conspiring to cite Doc Savage as an influence for Superman?


On the other hand, it's possible that your knowledge of the pulp age isn't that extensive, and that's not unreasonable. The most likely source for Superman is another pulp character, one by Edgar Rice Burroughs, John Carter, Warlord of Mars.

Yeah, if we want to go off on one of your pattern seeking rendezvous we can probably find all sorts of nifty similarities between Character X and Superman. Why do you think only ONE character can inspire Superman's creation? Is it unfathomable that Seigel and Shuster were fans of BOTH John Carter and Doc Savage?

I am just going by what the creators themselves have said. You are free to your speculations though.

In this pulp seres, Earthman John Carter is propelled through space, and finds himself on the planet Mars. This world is populated with people exactly like those of (just as is the case with the people of Krypton in the Superman stories). Carter becomes a literal "superman" while on Mars due to the "lower gravity" there. Like Superman, Carter is able to "leap tall buildings in a single bound", thrusting himself into the air beyond the physical abilities of the local inhabitants. It's worth noting that in the early Superman tales, Superman is unable to fly, merely leap up high into he air, just as John Carter demonstrates.

Yeah, I am not interested guy.


Doc Savage = "Man of Bronze"

Superman = "Man of Steel"

Doc Savage = Clark Savage

Superman = Clark Kent

Doc Savage bears obvious resemblance to Nietzche's "ubermensch" and Superman...same thing.

Any questions?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You also make a mistake with regard to the origin of The Shadow. The origin featured in the movie *is* the one comissioned by the original publishers of The Shadow pulps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And YOU just made the error of trying to tell a Shadow-phile he doesn't know The SHadow. The orgin in the movie contains elements from the Shadow's published source material but much of it was completely made up. Partly because the orgin of the Shadow has never had a real solid continuity. Gibson/Grant gave us two or three different takes on who Shadow was and where he came from and none of these orgins was comprehensive. Was he pilot Kent Allard or Playboy Lamont Cranston? Did he learn his power to cloud men's minds in Tibet or Shangra La or somewhere else?

It was all very sketchy and got even worse when the comic books came out and WAY worse when the Archie comics sereies was published(which had the Shadow and his sidekick wearing gaudy purple and green superhero outifts).

The movie story was not a butchering of the mythos. The problems with that movie(and there were a few to be sure) lay in other areas.

You're also highly incorrect when you talk about the origins od Spider-Man when comparing him to the Blue Beetle.


Go back and read what I wrote. I never said that Spiderman had anything to do with Beetle!?!?! I was showing you how easy it was to concoct a conspiracy theory about character orgins and who was ripping off who.

How could you POSSIBLY have taken that seriously?!?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Stan Lee and *Jack Kirby* originally worked on the Spider-Man concept. Lee wanted to do "Fly-Man" and Kirby advised against it. See, years prior, Kirby had been hired to create superheroes for Archie Comics Line. One of these was a figure called "The Fly." Lee asked Kirby more about him. Seems The Fly had *guns* that fired *webbing* just like Spider-Man's web shooters.

The "web guns" of The Fly seem to have become Spider-Man's "web-shooters."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I am also a fan of the Archie/Red Circle comics as well but I have a few questions here:

1)What is your point here?!? That ideas do not pop up in a vacuum?!? Whoop-de-doo! Thanks for THAT news flash!

2)If you were going for a "Archie comics heroes that inspired Spiderman" conspiracy angle, it would seem "The Web" would be an obvious target for you. Why did you settle on The Fly?

3)Again, true or not, what is your point here telling me things I already know and/or do not care about which have nothing to do with anything we are discussing?

BTW, The Blue Beetle is different shades of blue. I don't know what red and blue beetle you've been looking at.


WIll have to go look this nup again as I have not owned any Blue Bettle books for almost two decades(I used to have issues from the 1938 Fox Feature comcis series as well as the entire Charlton run) but I thought I recalled the orginal Beetle having red gloves(though I admit I may be getting cross-memory images of Thunderbolt and/or Captain Atom or somesuch).


(Oh, and Marvel and DC were emulating one another left and right from Fantastic Four #1 right on)


Your point?

When Spiderman was developed, Blue Beetle was not a D.C. character. He was at Charlton comics. The Charlton comics line in it's entirety was bought up by D.C. in teh 1980s, in part because of then editor-in-chief Dick Giordano's past association with Charlton(he worked there during the 1960's) and his love for those characters. A new and talented writer from England working for D.C. at this time named Alan Moore pitched a story called The Watchmen which featured Captain Atom, Blue Beetle, The Question, Peacemaker etc. as retired superheroes who stumble upon a far fetched plot to bring about world peace through a nuclear disaster. Giordano rejects the idea using the Charlton characters and Moore is forced to invent replacements.(See? I can spout off incidental trivia too!)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Yeah, and it shows. You still got it all wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong agin! I had it all RIGHT!


Ncie try though junior.

Anyway, here you are lecturing me about how I'm "wrong" about who sourced what and from where, and you miss even these famous examples.


Considering you think The Hulk movie was a famous example of someone propaghandizing the war on terror, you will forgive me if I don't take your bald assertions seriously.

Citations are your friend.

By the way, I have to admit that I find it annoying to hear observations on subtext called "conspiracies." The Incredibles runneth ver with subtext, commentary on modern life, social/political trends, the state of our culture of equity, and nothing of it is the result of a conspiracy.


What does THAT have to do with anything?!? Are you even reading anything I wrote?!?


Tapping the cultural pulse is *part* of what any serious filmmaker does, and it's what a studio expects from a *pitch*, what's the hook, the angle.


No. At least not in the way you are suggesting. A pitch is simply that: a pitch. It can be any idea imaginable. It can be culturally relevant or complete nonsense from start to finish(usually it is somehwere in between). A pitch is just a summarized proposal adn teh term itself doies not indicate what SHOULD be included within the proposal.


I must assume you're some high school student Skeptic, who hasn't taken lit, or ever read much of anything beyond comic books.


Wrong again. I have not even read a comic book in the last ten years. I read several books every week(mostly non-fiction, science, philosophy, skepticism etc.) and I am fast approaching middle age junior so save the asumptions.

You know, comics are *not* literature, no matter what they tell you on DVD commentaries.


Why not? You are going to HAVE TO start substantiating your assertions guy. Making a blanket generalization like that makes no more sense than saying "Comic book illustration is NOT art no matter what those spandex-fetish scribblers tell you!".

What you MEAN to say is that YOU do not appreciate that sort of literature(just as some people do not like "true crime" dramas).

What art(or literature) is is an entirely subjective matter for each individual to determine. To argue otherwise is pulling a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

To understand *art*, you have to read *real* books, books on society, artistic movements, even history.

Yeah, I think we have had about enough of your wannabe elitist nonsense so you can move along now. It would almost be entertaining to listen to such snobbery and self-appreciation if not for the fact that you are at a COMICS-TO-FILM message board making these pronouncements.

Your cheese is getting stale and someone is drinking the merlot right from the bottle. You better head on out so you won't be bothered by us commoners with our silly and primitve ideas about art and literature.

Okay, so let's compare The Shadow film, that Baldwin train wreck, with Batman Begins. Lamont Cranston, wealthy playboy journeys to Tibet, where, he adopts the life of a criminal for more than a decade.


AGAIN, the orgin being presented in Batman Begins goes back decades(in the comic books) before the Balwin Shadow movie premiered. You would have a much stronger case trying to convicne us that The Shadow movie "borrowed" liberally from Batman comics.
However NEITHER assertion is neccesarily true and the "Batman ripped off the Shadow movie" is patently stupid considering the histories of the characters and the fact that if WB were going to emulate another movie, they would pick one that made money. Not The Shadow or The Hulk.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Now, Batman Begins has this *same* element! Wealthy playboy Bruce Wayne journeys to Asia, lives life as a criminal there for more than a decade. While in Asia, the master of a temple learns of his exceptional abilities and has him brought to his place, resulting in, well exactly the same thing as in The Shadow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My freaking WORD! All these years of comci book and movie characters featuring similar orgin details adn you wait until NOW and up and decide to have a hissy fit because a rather common plot device(which probably originated with the Batman or at least appeared there before it became a common device) is used in Batman Begins?!? You know you would ALMOST have a point if the producers hasd just invented this story for this film but this has been the Batman's story for decades now!!!! HELLO?!?

Now, you can talk about "pattern recognition", but these aren't simple generalities.


It is a combination of insignifigant generalities and mischaracterization of the issue.


Rather, these are highly specific details. Man, George Lucas *sued* Glenn A. Larson over *lesser* similitude than these.

And Lucas was wrong(or rather the judge who ruled in his favor was wrong). But even IF Battlestar Galactica was a carbon copy of Star Wars, the relevant point would be in that one story made it's first appearance in 1977 and the other in 1978. That is not the case with Batman begins and The Shadow. Both of these characters are established icons of fiction with well known orgin stories that have undergone some superficial changes over the years(especially so with the translation to screen). Are you seriously suggesting they ignore the comics and create an all new orgin sotry for Batman just so there will be no similarity to a movie that most people did not both to go see anyway?!?
If they were going to do that then Lee and Ditko should have come up with a differnt Spidey orgin instead of copy/pasting from the classic sci-fi movie, The Fly(Accident in the lab leads to human with insectoid characteristics).

Something I find amusing is that you consider it "ballsy" for Warners to "restart" their Batman series. Have you watched the films they've put out? Everything since Batman Returns has been a restart of one sort or another. The reason they're doing a restart is that they ran everything else into the ground.

You are not making the least bit of sense here. What other Batman movie threw out the previous continuity established in the Burton films?

None.


Try again?

You list such "a-list" actors as Gary Oldham and so on. Let me put you a question, since that awful Dracula movie in the early 90's,


Let me stop you right there a second. it is your opinion that the Draccula movie was awful. That is fine and I am no fan of the film myself and you are entitled to your opinion.
But WHAT in the HELL does your opinion of a movie that was generally thought to be well done(aside from Keannu's poor accent) have to do with wheter Gary Oldham is a good actor? He is generally considered to be one of our finest actors and has been since playing Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy. There is no movie he is in where he is not good!

what major theatrical presentation has Oldham headlined *successfully* to the screen?


Oh, I see...you are going for the "If it makes lots of money then it MUST be good!" angle! Well in that case, yeah Oldham is a terrible actor. He rarely does big budget blockbuster, special effects heavy gigs. The jerk. :rollseyes:

Christian Bale, start of American Psycho, a box office misfire,

A modest success at the box office that was praised by movie critics worldwide. Bale's perfromance being the key reason for the critical success.

was also the star of Reign of Fire a few years back. This film was one of the most dismal flops of the past decade.


Decent movie that made little money. Not unusual. Pitch Black was one of the best sci-fi movies ever made IMO and it barely had a strong enough cult following to warrant teh sequel, which was a big budget, PG-13 effects laden crapfest and flop(notice a pattern there?)


Michael Caine, yeah, he's carried box office clought ever since he starred in Jaws 4: The Revenge. That's right, he's the star of a *sequel* to a 3-D movie.


What is your POINT?!? No one said that Caine never did a bad movie. Hell he talks about this fact every chance he gets in TV interviews! He had more trash to talk about Jaws 4 than ANYONE!

But like any good actor who has done one hundred movies or so, he learned adn eventually got to a point in his career(after Little Voice) where he "no longer had to do crap"(his own words) and he hasn't had to do crap-movies for a while now.

There are very few acclaimed actors who have NOT done crap before! Anthony Hopkins is considered to be one of the absolute best actors working in film and yet he still has Hannibal on his resume alongside The Remains of the Day.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Morgan Freeman is always impressive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Would he be less impressive if he had a stinker somewhere in his career? Would that invalidate him as an actor?

But neither he, nor Liam Neeson carry the star power of Jim Carey, or Uma Thurman and Aunold back in the days *those* Bat-films emerged.


Even IF that is true(Frankly, I am not buying Uma Thurman as poster-girl for "star power" and Jim Carey has had more dismal failures at the box office than he has had succeses but that is beside the point), what does this have to do with anything we are discussing? These are all actors who, at this stage of their careers, do NOT do "crap". They won't show up in "Fast and Furious 5: Assignment Miami Beach" or some crap. And after Batman and Robin stank up the joint you KNOW that Morgan Freeman, Christian Bale, Gary Oldham and Liam Neeson were leery about the propsect of doing a Batman movie, yet they read the script, met with teh director adn jum,pted at the chance.

That SHOULD tell you something.

Don't get me wrong, they're all impressive talents. But they aren't people the general audiences are clamoring to see.

*SIGH* Do you want a "blockbuster" that is crap or do you want a good movie regardless of how much or little money it takes in? What the HELL is your deal?!?

BTW, Micheal Caine *has* *will* and *does* jump at the chance to do crappy movies.


No he does not!?! What crappy movie(by "crappy" meaning Jaws 4 crappy, not a movie that critics liked but YOU did not)has he "jumped at" since doing Little Voice?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You say they're "the cream of the crop who won't work on a film till they've read the script." Well, the crop *they* come from isn't as creamy as that of Jack Nicholson back in '89.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Bullsh!t! Nicholson even said in interviews he was not at all interested in playing the Joker or having anything to do with the Batman movie but he ultimately agreed to because they offered him 25 MILLION dollars! At the time that was more than ANY actor had ever been offered to do a single film!
He basically said that he did crap because they offered him ridiculous gobs of money to do crap. And his performance in the film is not very good besides! This may be because of poor direction but for whatever reason, Jack had some inexplicably bad scenes in that movie.

And he signed to do that film, one with a horrid script. BTW, every one of these guys in the list has been in a terrible movie, or two. Or five.

So has pretty much every actor in Hollywood. Caine has been in a lot simply becuase he has been in a LOT of movies.

Your response regarding Ocean's Eleven is comical at best.


Was meant to be. Glad you liked it!

You say Batman isn't fighting "a war."


No I didn't. Listen, here is an idea: Why don't you stick to what I ACTUALLY SAY and steer clear of what you think I might mean. If you have questions then ask.

What I DID say was that characterizing Batman's crimefighting as a "war" is first of all, a subjective determination. Whether I also characterize it that was is irrelevant because you are commiting another logical fallacy of equivocation when you say "Batman is fighting a war on crime. We are embroiled in a war on terror. That means Batman is a propaganda film about the war on terror!". It is nonsense. It is akin to the following:

"Britany Spears dances.

Visions of sugar-plumbs dance in my head.

Therefore, Britany Spears is a sugar-plumb in my head!"


See?

But he's using military weapons against criminals,


Yeah, it is scary to think how poorly we would be doing in the war on terro without our "Batarangs", "Utility belts", "Bat-grapplines, capes and masks. I salute you constumed, utility belt wearing soldier in Afghanistan!

something even the police don't do. Why? That material is fit for *war*, not policework. Got you.

You are a moron. Superheroes don't have gadgets and superpowers because we are figting a war on terror. If that were true then how did those pulp era heroes like Doc Savage ever get off the ground? Savage used gadgetry adn athleticism just as Batman does and they both did so long before even WWII!

The heroes in superhero stories have to have stuff the police don't have or else why would we care? They could just do comic books about regular policemen!?!

Re: your comments about Ross sitting closley to Banner after he's wrecked the lab. You seem to be under the impression that this is absurd considering they suspect him of being The Hulk. Um, no. They don't think Banner used psychical strength to destroy the lab. They don't even suspect there *is* such a creature at this point in the film. They assume an explosive was used.


You imbecille! The scene in question happens at the END OF THE MOVIE and results in a slug fest between the Hulk and his dad! I have no idea what YOU are talking about!?

Oh, then you say that the public wasn't put off by how the homeland security/Bush/Rice/ military thing was handled in that flick, because Bush was re-elected.


*SIGH* ONCE AGAIN, NO I DID NOT SAY ANY SUCH THING! Go back and read what i DID say. Try to understand it. Ask questions if you need to but KNOCK OFF this crap of saying I said things which I did not. USE the friggin quote function!! BBCode is not rocket science!



------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[ToM]

Skeptic, you amuse me. I say that I expect that you've been reading too many fanboy directed materials (as in "intended for fanboy consumption") and you shout that down, saying you've read this DC Comics produced stuff. Man, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, then you go and say you'll produce "these findings" with a Googe search. Of course you can produce that such material is published, such opinions held. I could, just to make a point, do a Google search and pull up countless pages of "information" stating that this planet is a mere ten thousand years of age. It would be *inaccurate*, it would be materials existing to service another agenda, but it would exist.

The same is true of your stuff.

It's already been noted that "The Bat", the pulp character, is a coincidence. Now, The Bat *was* a knock off from The Shadow, but "Batman" didn't start out that way. Batman was an attempt to cash in on Superman (for Pete's sakes, why do you think they gave him a red and blue costume?)

Yes, Superman does share some traits with Doc Savage, and he's a portion of the character's invention. But the thrust of who and what Superman *is* comes most probably from what Burroughs had been publishing in pulps with major success all through the twenties and beyond.

You really have no idea of what was going on in this period Skeptic, with the characters or anything else. You say that Batman was drawn up out of The Shadow, because he was a dark violent character with *no* superpowers. Are you unaware that The Shadow has profound telepathic abilities that allow him to seem invisible? Telepathic abilities aren't supernatural, or just plain "super" in nature? Hey, don't tell me you think The Pheonix isn't superpowerful....

And Bob Kane already stated, many time sin the past that *Zorro* was the single most important character when we're talking the inspiration for Batman, not The Shadow. In fact, the genesis of the idea most probably didn't arrive from Kane, but from a publishing executive as a result of market research.

You say the big wigs wanting a Superman of their own have nothing to do with the development of Batman. Skeptic, the company that created Batman was a publisher of *pulps.* Do you have *any* idea of how those serials came about? They were decided on in board rooms, corporate calls most often (sometimes even one shot stories emerged this way). The creation of Batman is *very* likely to have in *truth* emerged in this same way. You see, just as an example, Kane's Batman designs were being taken to the publishers, and being given a thumbs down. They had to okay what he was doing. It isn't like he walked in the door with his pitch! And this is why Bill Finger was brought in. Batman was a *process*, not the work of a single individual, or even a process as simple as is so often told to fanboys.

You "report" that every DC editor has "reported" that Batman was based on The Shadow. But here's what you never guess at, *none* of them were *there* at the time Batman was whipped up. They simply *assumed* be was based on The Shadow. The *name* "Batman" was already owned by the company before Bob Kane even walked in the door. Batman has no supernatural abilities, he's *not* "super" as even The Shadow is. Zorro has a secret headquarters in a cave, Zorro is a wealthy playbody who dones a mask and cape and fights injustice, yada, yada, yada.

Now, you say that you're talking about the Batman who know today, not "whatever" early version was on the drawing board. But the fact is, the red and blue get-up *demsontrates for us clearly* that the whole purpose in inventing a "Batman" was a reaction to the success of Superman, not The Shadow. They didn't have The Shadow in mind. He isn't what they were sourcing.

Comic book writers and artists don't have much at stake when it comes to appointing the proper identification for the origins of Superman. But the *creators* do. And people endlessly repeat their accounts.

You mention Savage being much like "Superman." You neglect to mention the influence of a character in the novel "Gladiator", who is a literal Superman.

The Shadow, by the way, learned his mystic abilities in *India*, if the radio drama is to be trusted.

Why did I settle on "The Fly?" Because this was teh character Kirby alerted Lee to, and the possible lawsuit they might find themselves tangeled in. This is *also* a likely reason for why Lee swapped Kirby for Ditko on the project (rather than the story told in public). The characters could be considered too similar, and it could break the bank (because Kirby had created them at the rival company). So, by swapping artists, the divide seemed greater than it might have been.

The point to this is that one thing, one more thing, leads to annn-oother.

Batman going to Tibet as a criminal, to be recruited by Ra's, all that stuff similar to he Shadow, is *not* decades old btw.

I'm suggesting with regard to Batman and The Shadow that the comics were of less value in cobbling this script together than taking a look at other material of a similar type (the same genre) and chopping it up and sewing it together.

I'm sorry, but Bruce Wayne living his life as a criminal for more than ten years *isn't* part of *any* of the comics continuity you're referencing. Neither is the temple master learning of the criminal's impressive abilities and sending for him. That's found in the *feature* adaptation of The Shadow that I'm talking about, and you have no way around that. It isn't in the pulps, the Shadow comics, nowhere but the movie.

As for continuity issues, Batman Forever was a restart. They didn't reference the Burton films (aside from having Burton do a cameo). They retold the origins of Batman , and even had a new actor playing the title role. Hey, they even had Batman sport an all different costume. And when Batman And Robin hit screens, they had *another* actor in the lead, and a new costume for Robin entirely, with no references to the previous films.

Now I see you're on about the sequence towards the end of the Hulk where Banner is sitting near his FATHER, not Ross. Okay, you seem to have misunderstood that scene because you weren't paying attention.

Ross allows Banner to sit near his father because it will be *likely* that the upset will result in a transformation into The Hulk. He wants him to transform. Why? Well, you know why if you'd only paid attention. Ross has them sitting in the center of a massive circuit. The moment Banner starts to show signs of "phenomena" a switch is to be punched, and both men fried into ashes. He's doing this to eliminate the threat the two figures pose. He's setting them up for a *legal* form of murder.
ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[Majik1387]

Can we close this forum topic because it just seems like ToM likes thinking he knows everything about anything, and he just likes to hear the sound of his voice(though we can't hear him).

[ToM]

You know what? If I'm coming across like a know it all, I really don't have anyone but myself to blame. So, I shouldn't take it out on whoever draws attention to whatever spectacle I may be making of myself. Still, keep in mind that *I* haven't been calling anyone names (and I doubt I'm alone in this thread where it comes to throwing factoids around with some vigor).

Actually, seeing this brings something to light. We're seriously deviating from the subject with all this backstory drama. Granted, it does service the whole "this influenced that" bit, and all the ways things regarding these subjects emerge as a direct result of the success of other takes on these figures and stories (increasing the likelihood of copy and pasting). But it really isn't the focus. We *were* talking about the challenges this film adaptation faces that are unique to *it*, and if the subtext featured in the promotional material are, well, questionable in taste.

Anyway, for this film to be successful at the domestic box office, it'll have to outreach three hundred million. That means it cannot be a "good" movie, it'll have to be outstanding. Most summer movies can get away with being good. But not this one.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[Majik1387]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Still, keep in mind that *I* haven't been calling anyone names (and I doubt I'm alone in this thread where it comes to throwing factoids around with some vigor).
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What name did I call you? Read my post again and if you found me calling you a name and please tell me what I called you, because I try not to resort to name-calling. And last I checked I didn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Actually, seeing this brings something to light. We're seriously deviating from the subject with all this backstory drama.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no drama with you and I haven't read anywhere on this topic where it seems like another member has problems with you.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> We *were* talking about the challenges this film adaptation faces that are unique to *it*, and if the subtext featured in the promotional material are, well, questionable in taste.

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What promo material is questionable, because I have searched and everything looked fine.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Anyway, for this film to be successful at the domestic box office, it'll have to outreach three hundred million. That means it cannot be a "good" movie, it'll have to be outstanding. Most summer movies can get away with being good. But not this one.

ToM

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How did you come to arrive at that number? What are your statistics that the movie needs to be outreach three hundred million? Can you name a few outstanding movies so we can have an example of what one is?

[The Xenos]

As for Batman's origins, yes, he was cretated to follow in the polarity of Superman, but what what I've read, as a contrast to him. He wasn't really red and blue, unless you mean an ealier Kane sketch that was changed.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Majik1387:
Since Dracula, he's been in The Scarlet Letter, The Fifth Element, Air Force One, The Contender, Hannibal, and Hrry Potter 3. If those movies aren't headlined succesfully, tell me what is?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah. Ixnay on the Arlet Etter ay.

As for Nolan, I liked Memento. I can understand how some did not. I haven't seen Insomnia, but have heard mixed reviews. Is he perfect for Batman? No. Could he make a good Batman film, it it fairly likely? Could be.

As for Begins, why can't we let this movie be itself? Why does everyone in it have to be a big name? Why does it have to be a big comecial blockbuster summer movie actionfest? Why can't it be a nice medium sized crime film? We've already seen Batman films events like you're talking about, and the last two flopped. Here's something new. Let's see how it turns out. Tom, you seem to be complaining that this isn't the Batman film you want or think will do well in the box office. Yet what do you think would work. You keep complaining about stuff in this one that is new, yet complain that you don't want another same old Batman movie. What in a Batman film could please you or what do you think could make this movie big?


-Xenos

[Majik1387]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Xenos:
<B> Yeah. Ixnay on the Arlet Etter ay.
-Xenos</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't care. The movie was alright, though the book was better.

[CaptainSkeptic]

Majik': It was I who called ToM names but ONLY after he spewed his "Comic books aren't literature adn you are obviously some youngster who gets his info from fanboy material" load of BS. If he had been more or less correct in his assertions and more or less respectful in presenting such, then I would not have called him an imbecille.


ToM

Skeptic, you amuse me. I say that I expect that you've been reading too many fanboy directed materials (as in "intended for fanboy consumption") and you shout that down, saying you've read this DC Comics produced stuff.


There is a HUGE difference in reading what writers, artists and editors have to say about the history of the Batman in interviewss or commentaries and reading "fanboy material". Fanboy stuff is akin to "Guess waht??? I jus haewrd that GLENN DANZIG will play Wolferine in the new X-MEN movie!!1111. TAHT ROXXX!!!".

Man, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Oh, then you go and say you'll produce "these findings" with a Googe search. Of course you can produce that such material is published, such opinions held. I could, just to make a point, do a Google search and pull up countless pages of "information" stating that this planet is a mere ten thousand years of age. It would be *inaccurate*, it would be materials existing to service another agenda, but it would exist.


No wonder you do not provide citations to back up your claims. You are completely unfamiliar with such things. To provide references to substantiate claims you make is just a rule of debate because otherwise we end up with two people shouting non-facts at each other adn beating each other up over uninformed opinions.
I constantly debate Creationists for example for many hours every week. If one of them contends that "macro-evolution" is impossible because the earth is only 10,000 years old, he is obliged to provide a citation for how he coame to such a conclusion about the age of the earth. If he provides a non-scientific, fundementalist web site as a link to where he is getting his info, then I only have to show that the authors of said site are not geologists or evolutionary biologists or paleontologists and that round goes to ME.
THAT is the point of providing references. If you do not provide them when you are stating somethingt as fact that is generally not accepted as fact, then I have no way to show you how your information is right or wrong, other than by providing my own(hopefully more credible) citations.

The fact that people can provide bad references does not absolve you of the responsibility.

You are conteding that The Batman was not in any way inspired by The SHadow adn that Doc Savage did not influence Superman. THis goes against generally accepted facts about those characters. Therefore it is upon YOU to provide references to support your case.

Same goes for when you state that "lots of people thought the music in the Hulk sounded too Arabic" and whatnot. If this were true, we would have heard something about it from some news source by now(just as we heard all about Jews' objections to The Passion of the Christ).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The same is true of your stuff.

It's already been noted that "The Bat", the pulp character, is a coincidence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


This bit about The Bat inspiring Batman came from Bob Kane himself in an interview with a magazine I read back in like 1989 or so, so it may well be inaccurate. Still, you do not provide references/citations so ...*shrug*

Now, The Bat *was* a knock off from The Shadow, but "Batman" didn't start out that way. Batman was an attempt to cash in on Superman (for Pete's sakes, why do you think they gave him a red and blue costume?)


AGAIN, I am not interested in Bob Kane's red and blue Bat-man because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the character we are discussing in THIS THREAD! If I came across a sketch titled "Superman" from 1904 by some magazine illustrator which depicted a caped man wearing yellow and black clothing with blond hair, it would not matter one iota in discussing D.C.'s character as to what inspired the 1904 sketch, even IF Siegel and Shuster were inspired by said sketch to create the man of steel.

Yes, Superman does share some traits with Doc Savage, and he's a portion of the character's invention. But the thrust of who and what Superman *is* comes most probably from what Burroughs had been publishing in pulps with major success all through the twenties and beyond.

Again, this is irrelevant even if true because my onmly point which you contested was that Doc Savage inspired Superman. I did not say that Doc was the SOLE influence adn you came out saying "I can't believe you bought that crap!" as if I were spewing urban legends.

You really have no idea of what was going on in this period Skeptic, with the characters or anything else.


And you have no idea what you are talking about. You want to keep this crap up? Or should we start conducting ourselves like adults here? We can sit all day doing the "I know everything and you don't know anything!" song and dance.


You say that Batman was drawn up out of The Shadow, because he was a dark violent character with *no* superpowers.


NO I DID NOT SAY ANY SUCH THING. USE THE F***ING QUOTE FUNCTION AND QUOTE ME. THEN RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT I SAY!


Go look up "strawman fallacy".

Are you unaware that The Shadow has profound telepathic abilities that allow him to seem invisible?


No, I am fully aware of this as evidenced by the fact that I WAS THE ONE WHO MENTIONED THIS FIRST IN THIS THREAD!


Telepathic abilities aren't supernatural, or just plain "super" in nature? Hey, don't tell me you think The Pheonix isn't superpowerful....

I cannot believe you are actually that stupid. I must assume you are instead trolling here. The Shadow's mystical talents are a far cry from emitting lasers from one's eye sockets or tearing down suspension bridges with one's bare hands. Comparing the Shadow's ability to "cloud men's minds" to the powers displayed by The Pheonix and such is plain stupid. The Shadow's talents are more comparable to the mythological mnartial artist who overcomes matter using his mind or kills someone with a well directed nerve pinch. This puts the Shadow in the same camp as Batman, movie ninjas, and vedic psychics. The Shadow's abilities are not far off from the Batman's ability to leap fropm a 20 story building and catch a flag pole ten stories down then swing from there onto a precipice that is 3 stories back up etc. but his abilities are night and day when compared to an ability to fly around and shoot flames from one's body or mind.

And Bob Kane already stated, many time sin the past that *Zorro* was the single most important character when we're talking the inspiration for Batman, not The Shadow.


I repeat, since you missed this the first time: Bob Kane had almost NOTHING to do with the creation of the Batman. Hew is(was? is he dead yet?) a liar, an oppurtunist, a plagerist and someone who could contradict himself in the span of two sentences.

Therefore, I do not care if he said somewhere that Billy the Kid was the greatest inspiration for Bat's.

I am more interested in what inspired those who created THIS batman(the one being published by D.C.). The Bill Fingers, the Frank Millers, the Denny Oneils and the Neal Adams'.

In fact, the genesis of the idea most probably didn't arrive from Kane, but from a publishing executive as a result of market research.


See above.

You say the big wigs wanting a Superman of their own have nothing to do with the development of Batman.


USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION. It is simple: copy the text you want to quote where I said *something*. Paste it within your reply. Seperate it by placing a [ quote ](withoput the spaces) BEFORE said text and a [ /quote ](again without the spaces) AFTER said text. Then type your reply below this.

I don't mind when people do not use the quote function if they are not misrepresenting me but you have a knack for completely misunderstanding and misstating things I say.

Skeptic, the company that created Batman was a publisher of *pulps.*


WRONG. The company that solicited Bob Kane's ridiculous sketch was a company who published pulps. SInce Batman does not resemble or have anything substnatial to do with said character, your statemetn is inaccurate for our purposes here. It is akin to saying that Al Pacino played Al Capone in the movie about that crimelord because he played the protagonist in "Scarface".
The Scarface of Pacino's movie was not at all the gangster from the 1920s.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
You "report" that every DC editor has "reported" that Batman was based on The Shadow. But here's what you never guess at, *none* of them were *there* at the time Batman was whipped up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Let's examine this line of reasoning shall we? By YOUR logic, evolution is false because those biologists were not around miocene apes made the transition to neanderthals and cromagnons and austrailopithicus etc..

That is nonsense.

They simply *assumed* be was based on The Shadow.


Wrong again. Ironically this is an ASSUMPTION on YOUR PART. It does not follow that since they were not around when Batman was created then they must just be guessing blindly about the character's orgins.


The *name* "Batman" was already owned by the company before Bob Kane even walked in the door.


Fact is that "batman" both as a name adn as a character concept was just a matter of weeks from being published by SOMEONE in SOME FORM. Before D.C. published their Bat-man there were a number of creative types that were coming dangerously close because of the successes of the Shadow AND Superman.
It just so happens that the one theat "made it"(D.C.'s Bat-Man) was more inspired by the Shadow in his concept. If Kane had had his way then the Batman of today may be wearing a red and blue costume adn flying around in the dark navigating with sonar or somesuch.

Batman has no supernatural abilities, he's *not* "super" as even The Shadow is.


You are splitting hairs here. THE SHadow is closer to Batman even on the "power scale" than he is to Superman. At the time the Shadow was created(which is a story in itself), it was commonly accepted that Asians migh possess "ancient chineese secrets" of mysticism such as the Shadow displays. This notion was so common for decades(hell it is even still around TODAY in the form of martial arts myths adn alternative medicine BS) that many western European stage magicians adopted chinese names and constumes when performing magic.

Superman was not rooted in such ideas. He was a new idea altogether. He was like the familiar pulp heroes of Doc Savage and John Carter taken to a ridiculous extreme of sci-fi wonderment. Batman as a charter concept oweed more to the Shadow than to superman(except in trivial details like the wearing of a costume and such).


Now, you say that you're talking about the Batman who know today, not "whatever" early version was on the drawing board. But the fact is, the red and blue get-up *demsontrates for us clearly* that the whole purpose in inventing a "Batman" was a reaction to the success of Superman, not The Shadow.


AGAIN, no one here is interested in "a batman". What is important is what inspired THE Bat-man/Batman! SInce the movie Batman Begins is not about any red and blue costumed Superman clone, your fetish with Bob Kane's initial crayon scribblings is irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Comic book writers and artists don't have much at stake when it comes to appointing the proper identification for the origins of Superman. But the *creators* do. And people endlessly repeat their accounts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Objection! Relevance...? More bald assertions *sigh*....

You mention Savage being much like "Superman." You neglect to mention the influence of a character in the novel "Gladiator", who is a literal Superman.


I also neglected to mention Hercules and Flash Gordon for all that matters.

The Shadow, by the way, learned his mystic abilities in *India*, if the radio drama is to be trusted.


Again, that is my point. There were NUMEROUS discrepancies between Gibson/Grant's pulp writings in the magazines, paperbacks and comics as well as the radio-theatre dramas adn probably even the Victor Jori movie stuff. THat is one reason the Alec Baldwin movie HAD to make some stuff up and come up with a definitive orgin story.

Why did I settle on "The Fly?" Because this was teh character Kirby alerted Lee to, and the possible lawsuit they might find themselves tangeled in. This is *also* a likely reason for why Lee swapped Kirby for Ditko on the project (rather than the story told in public). The characters could be considered too similar, and it could break the bank (because Kirby had created them at the rival company). So, by swapping artists, the divide seemed greater than it might have been.


Who cares?!? What does this have to do with ANYTHING we are discussing?!? You enjoy going off on these meandering tangents I see but it does not refute any of MY points!

The point to this is that one thing, one more thing, leads to annn-oother.

And what is the point of THAT? How does that change the fact that it is easy to find a conspiracy or pattterns one is looking for?

Batman going to Tibet as a criminal, to be recruited by Ra's, all that stuff similar to he Shadow, is *not* decades old btw.

Batman going to Tibet IS! I do not recall anything about him being recruuited as a criminal in the stuff I read but even if this were true, Occam's razor suggests coincidence, not conspiracy. The Begins team would not likely go to the trouble of trying to rip off a box office bomb like The Shadow.

I'm suggesting with regard to Batman and The Shadow that the comics were of less value in cobbling this script together than taking a look at other material of a similar type (the same genre) and chopping it up and sewing it together.

You can suggest it all you want. But since you cannot rationally justify these claims, they will be ignored/rejected by rational thinkers.

I'm sorry, but Bruce Wayne living his life as a criminal for more than ten years *isn't* part of *any* of the comics continuity you're referencing.


This is where citations would help your case. Give us a link to the script which has this occuring. Besides that, see above.

Neither is the temple master learning of the criminal's impressive abilities and sending for him. That's found in the *feature* adaptation of The Shadow that I'm talking about, and you have no way around that. It isn't in the pulps, the Shadow comics, nowhere but the movie.


And for all WE know it is not in the movie either.

As for continuity issues, Batman Forever was a restart. They didn't reference the Burton films (aside from having Burton do a cameo). They retold the origins of Batman , and even had a new actor playing the title role.


False. They did not "retell" the orgin, they added to it(trying to force some of Year one into the Burton mess to appease some comic fans sensibilities). They had a different actor because Keaton did not even want to do the first two adn had had more than enough by the time "Forever" rolled around.


Hey, they even had Batman sport an all different costume.


No they didn't. It was still an all black rubber affair with some superficial adn minute changes.

And when Batman And Robin hit screens, they had *another* actor in the lead, and a new costume for Robin entirely, with no references to the previous films.


See above. Also you keep harping on this "no references to the previous films" bit as if that supported your claims!? What do you expect? That each film should have some mandatory reference to the previous film?!? Like Batman should stop punching Bane long enough to say "By the way, I am the same guy who killed the joker a few years ago adn I used to date Vicky Vale!". That is stupid!

Now I see you're on about the sequence towards the end of the Hulk where Banner is sitting near his FATHER, not Ross. Okay, you seem to have misunderstood that scene because you weren't paying attention.

Been hanging out with the elitists again huh? Then my standard response that you are an uneducated imbecille applies.

Ross allows Banner to sit near his father because it will be *likely* that the upset will result in a transformation into The Hulk. He wants him to transform. Why? Well, you know why if you'd only paid attention. Ross has them sitting in the center of a massive circuit. The moment Banner starts to show signs of "phenomena" a switch is to be punched, and both men fried into ashes. He's doing this to eliminate the threat the two figures pose. He's setting them up for a *legal* form of murder.


Even IF this were true and explained within the film(which I don't recall and I am not about to EVER watch that stink bomb again!), it is still complete nonsense! Tehy could not stop the hulk with all of the military firepower of the U.S. Army and Ross was supposed to think that(according to you) he could kill off the Hulk by electrocuting him?!? Why wouldn't he just shoot Banner in the head or something and make it look like an accident(blow up the corpse and say Banner tried to escape by stealing a gas truck when it crashed and exploded or something)?!?

[ToM]

Xenos, yes, I'm referencing the original vision for Batman by Kane which was red and blue. There wasn't a single sketch of this character in those colors, but several. These were rejected, hence Bill Finger came into the mix. The reason this finds mention here is because it qualifies the fact that the publishers were asking for a "Superman" of their own. Superman was the template. They didn't say, "We want something like The Shadow." They wanted Superman. It's also possible they were worried about a lawsuit over the cape and coloring of the get up.

It might seem strange today, given how many superheroes have capes, and how many would emerge in the Golden Age of comics, but concern over capes was a regular fixture. The publishers of Superman made it known that they'd *sue* anybody who would have a superhero who came from another planet. I mean, today that seems absurd. But the threat was real at the time. So, there was a concern over capes being lawsuit fodder as well.

Jules Feiffer talked about this, giving mention of how most of the first batch of heroes, people like The Flash, Hawkman, The Human Torch, Submariner, Wonder Woman, The Spirit, Captain America (though he's a bit later on) would all avoid capes. The Spectre sports one, but Jerry Siegel himself came up with that design. Green Lantern wears a cape, but he's a Bill Finger character, and he'd already sewn up Batman in his. So, even though in enough time the waters of the cape trend were tested, and more and more characters started wearing them, at the time of Batman "begining" it was still pretty touchy. And giving him a red and blue outfit was pushing things a bit to be sure.

We could go into how long it took for the publishers of Captain Marvel to be sued, or the producers of Mighty Mouse, but we've taken a long enough detour here I think.

Oh! Xenos, you put before me a great question! Why does this have to be a "huge" movie. Well, when you bank roll a film that costs one hundred and eighty million plus, and the promotional budget is one hundred million, it *must* be huge to recoup. Look, the international box office helped Hulk into successhood. But do you see them rushing to make the next one? The domestic box office is still where it's at. Batman must do *better* than just make every dime back here at home. It *must* go "better" than three hundred million. It isn't just about Batman anymore. If he sinks, it can take this subgenre down as part of a cumulative effect. Call it "The WB Effect."

I also don't have a problem with the cast (aside from Katie Holmes) they're all great and can be winning in their roles. *That* can help this film, not their "star" power, because they don't really have that. But part (a very sizable part) of the attraction audiences had to Batman films has *always* been the huge names that have been stuck into the credits. This film doesn't have that.

Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, these sorts of films can get away with smaller names, because they've no cinematic *history* of which to speak of such a nature. But Batman does. When a new film was announced, the question was always "Okay, *who* do they have in it *this* time?" And, as it happened, it was always someone who was *currently* very hot with audiences at that precise moment. The cast *this* time isn't going to be enough to get eople to ride over trouble spots in the script or *subtext* (like over the awful Batman and Batman Returns scripts)

As for what I think was needed? First of all, if this is a relaunch, it needed to be *total.* The look of Batman required a revamp. Rather than the rubber outfit, a new and more form fitting polymer would be featured for the costume. The body suit could enhance the muscle structure in the same way we see the Spidey costume beefing up Tobey.

Why would this flexible look be important? Because we'd be seeinga *truer* Batman on screen than WB has presented before. Although all these "Batman fans" continue to go on about character integrity, they somehow fail to recognize the character for who he is, and what made him distinct originally. Batman is vulnerable.

The comic character is lithe, flexible, stealthy, acrobatic, dodging bullets, not *accepting* them into his "armored form." He isn't bulky, nor is he armored, nor is he weighty. Batman is graceful, careful, because he *has* to be. The feature version is the inversion of *all* these hallmarks. By modifying these things, they modify everything he says about himself with his body. Batman *is* what he *does.*

The mask could still be a rubber "helmet" because he's doing a lot of repelling. If he's swining, using his glider, yeah, give him the helmet mask. But does it make any sort of sense for a guy to attempt gliding with a cape of all things...if he's weighted down in thirty or forty pounds of rubber? He needs to look light, he needs to *be* light.

Ideally, I'd like to see some form of animatronics or CGI employed to allow for *some* minor expression in the mask if it *weren't* a helmet. It would all depend on what direction they're going with.

As for the story? A restart would need another examination of his origins, but I'd rather not so length a plot element. Something, just as a suggestion mind you, would've been that Batman has been out of action for some time, trying to resolve his issues, Gotham no longer needing a figure such as Batman. Gradually, a state of decay emerges in the order of things in the city, situations that recall his previous life, and though he struggles to resist, he can't escape Batman and resumes his identity.

The history of Batman, all this we gain from reflection characters who don't have the whole thing. And the missing sections and *corrections* we take from the Wayne character himself, though not by lengthy exposition, but through *character* employment. To tell you the truth, the Batman origin is doodad dirt simple, it need not be so complex a thing to express on film. The story is inside the character, and can be "shown" by looking *inside* of him, not at streams of flashbacks showing him ice skating or whatever (and we've already sen "Batman On Ice" before in the *last* Bat-outing).

The Scarecrow is a *great* idea for a foil. In fact, a character forcing one to encounter buried fears is *exactly* the sort of thing that could cause "Batman" to reemerge from Bruce Wayne (if "Batman" is what he's come to *fear* becoming again, because "Batman" represents his unresolved traumas combined into an identity, Batman as *regression*, Batman as being *trapped*)

As for the "fears" that would emerge, if they *had* to do a flashback, what better way to accomplish this? What better way to understand Bruce Wayne than the audience entering his psyche, and not seeing his *actual* history, but the distorted way he sees his own life, and what it's always been?" I mean, our lives aren't what they are because of what things have transpired, but the way we *feel* about them, the way we interpret events. All these people seem to be talking about how we've never gotten to "know" Batman in other features. Watching him train on ice doesn't really give us much by way of that, does it?

I'd liked to have seen, say David Bowie as the Scarecrow.

I like the "reality" based Batman, and I prefer the basic style art direction over the excessively stylized content of the older films. But you *have* to contribute a *real* "Batmobile" to any given Batman film. We're talking about a staple here.

Oh, Skeptic, I see you ranting about how important research is in debate. I agree. And yet, for all your frothing rantings and swearing, you've up till now produced exactly nothing by way of your claims. So, whatever. Takes one to know one I guess.

Oh, I see you debate creationists. You know, *true* skeptics take amusement at how creationists and the disciples of Darwin (the great plagiarist of Wallace) debate "reality." To us, we're simply seeing the mutual fanging of dueling dogmatics. They're religion trying to be science, Darwin's sons are science trying to be religion, with the facts altered to fit the views rather than the views altered to suit the *facts* nearly as much as the ten thousand years old club.

The "accepted facts" of these characters aren't facts at all, but suppositions. Kane says the inspiration was Zorro, but Kane is hardly unbiased and unable to be entirely trusted. Sadly, Kane is one of the strongest witnesses we have left, or ever had for that matter.

I love by the way that you argue that had audiences felt the music in Hulk was too Arabic we'd have heard about it on the news by now. And what if *you* simply hadn't heard it on the news? And there are many things in Heaven and Earth that aren't found on the cable news, or the Weekly World news or National Geographic (who should have nearly as poor a reputation as the Weekly World News).

You say Kane said The Bat was the inspiration? You know, I recall Kane saying that was just a coincidence. I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe Kane's story changed.

Nice to see BTW how you "remember" this and yet don't produce it.

Anyway, no point in continuing with the origins of Batman, or that Hulk film, as you're raving now largely. Suffice it to be said, it really is a bit silly to explain details of a movie to you for reason of you not paying attention closely enough, while you say you'll never watch it again.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[The Xenos]

Tom: " Spider-Man, Fantastic Four, these sorts of films can get away with smaller names, because they've no cinematic *history* of which to speak of such a nature. But Batman does. When a new film was announced, the question was always "Okay, *who* do they have in it *this* time?""

Good point. I hope they convince people that this is a new beginning. I think the title is a bit blunt, but lord knows after those last two they need to let people know they're doing things new and hopefully rihgt this time. Yeah, the key thing here is that this is a new Bamtan movie. I hope they can get that across, because to me this looks like the origins current Batman which I'm happy to see.

I agree the costume is a bit disapoing, at first glance. I was feeling the same way too for a bit. Then I saw a bit more about it. I see scene in the trailer of him building it (and a number of his tech) based on realistic armor stolen from his company.

On a side note, about the Scarlet Letter movie Oldman was in,

Majik1387: "I don't care. The movie was alright, though the book was better."

I heard in Demi Moore's Scarlet Letter they comepletely changed the ending! Hester and Dimsdale run off together! It's like rewriting Romeo and Juliet or any other classic tragic love story and giving it a happy ending. I'm not taht big of a fan of the book, but to change the ending like that is laughable.

-Xenos

[CaptainSkeptic]

Oh, Skeptic, I see you ranting about how important research is in debate.


Once AGAIN, what the HELL are you talking about? Who said anything about "reasearch"?

Oh, I see you debate creationists. You know, *true* skeptics take amusement at how creationists and the disciples of Darwin (the great plagiarist of Wallace)


You have no idea what a skeptic is. You are like the fundies who assert that "*True* Christians do exactly as i do..." or "*True* Skeptics believe my God makes sense."

That is complete nonsense. Skepticism entails critical thinking, NOT endorsement of an ideological position.

Also Darwin did not plagarise Wallace(though Wallace DID technically beat him to the evolution idea). THis is more creationist web site propaghanda which can be easilly revealed as such by taking a short jaunt over to the talkorgins.org web site.

... debate "reality." To us, we're simply seeing the mutual fanging of dueling dogmatics.


ANother bald assertion. Bald assertions, strawmen, equivocation, gap arguments, 'No True Scotsman' fallacy,...these are all logical fallacies. They are a no-no in a debate. When you invoke logical fallacies to make your case, you are conceding reason to your opponent. When you repeatedly do so you are conceding the rational and intellectual high ground to your opponent.


They're religion trying to be science, Darwin's sons are science trying to be religion, with the facts altered to fit the views rather than the views altered to suit the *facts* nearly as much as the ten thousand years old club.


Not only a bald assertion but a flat out false statement! Science is not a religion and cannot be. The contrary claim that you are spouting is common and oft refuted ID/Creationist nonsense.

How in the HEll do you even come to the conclusion logically that evolutionists are trying to be religion?!? What principles for living or doctrines of morality exist within the theory of evolution by natural selection??
What reverence for spiritualism or mysticism? What tenets of faith?

Trust me. If people think I have been hard on you in regards to the Batman debate, you should steer well clear of trying me on matters of evolution, skepticism, theism vs. atheism and the like.

The "accepted facts" of these characters aren't facts at all, but suppositions. Kane says the inspiration was Zorro, but Kane is hardly unbiased and unable to be entirely trusted. Sadly, Kane is one of the strongest witnesses we have left, or ever had for that matter.

AGAIN Kane is a liar and an imbecille. He was never much of an artist.He even tried copying McFarlane's art from Year Two and passing it off as his own in a series of lithographs celebrating the 1989 release of "Batman" and when asked to explain why he did this obvious act of plagarism, he simply denied comment and hid out somewhere.

So he makes a piss-poor witness from where I stand.

I love by the way that you argue that had audiences felt the music in Hulk was too Arabic we'd have heard about it on the news by now. And what if *you* simply hadn't heard it on the news?


AGAIN, this is a strawman. Since you cannot seem to be bothered to study this on your own allow me to explain. A strawman occurs when you either fabricate a position completely that is easily "beaten down" adn assign it to your opponent OR you state his position is a distorted way that makes it more easily "beaten".

For example:

John argues that when a woman is merely several weeks or less pregnant, and especially if there are medical complications involved, SHE should have to right to elect to abort the fetus.

Gary responds "Well, I guess if a woman does not like the man she married she should be able to murder him in his sleep as well?".


Gary has commited the strawman becuase John's position is not that people should be allowed to murder people because they don't like them. No rational person would advocate that! Gary could not attack the position John WAAs advocating so he created a "straw-man" dummy and labeled it "Gary's ideas" then beat the stuffing out of it.

What I said in regards to teh music of the Hulk was in response to YOUR assertion that "Lot's of people thought the music was too Arabic." (and the desert locales). If this were true then we would expect Superhero Hype and C2F to be brimming with reports that movie-goers were compalining about this.

Fact is you made up the nebulous claim to bolster your position via an ad numeri(another logical fallacy. The ad numeri occurs when you argue that something must be factually correct because a large number of people believe it so. For example: "The Christian religion must be correct because there are billions of christians!")

And there are many things in Heaven and Earth that aren't found on the cable news, or the Weekly World news or National Geographic (who should have nearly as poor a reputation as the Weekly World News).


See this is just more evidecne that you are a troll. You take every oppurtunity to spout off non-sequitors about your personal conspiracy theories and political ideologies(e.g. "National Geographic is tabloid nonsense" and "Movie X is 'war on terror' propaghanda." etc.) seemingly to bait people into a debate about these things so you can spout off your miseducation as if it were revered wisdom.

You say Kane said The Bat was the inspiration?


USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION!!! I EVEN TAUGHT YOU HOW TO DO SO IN MY LAST POST!!That way you can be SURE about what I said adn not have to 'Guessmember' it. What I said was that I recalled Kane saying the bat was AN inspiration, not "THE" inspriation.


You know, I recall Kane saying that was just a coincidence.


Probably did. So what? Kane was not unaccustomed to contradiction or deceit.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> I'm not saying you're wrong, but maybe Kane's story changed.

Nice to see BTW how you "remember" this and yet don't produce it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't produce WHAT?!? If I said I seemed to remembger something from an interview from 1989 what do you want me to produce? My memory?!?

Anyway, no point in continuing with the origins of Batman, or that Hulk film, as you're raving now largely. Suffice it to be said, it really is a bit silly to explain details of a movie to you for reason of you not paying attention closely enough, while you say you'll never watch it again.


Awwww...I'm hurt *sob*.

Go away moron, lest I embarass you some more.

[The Xenos]

Man, these debates are so crazy, it's rather fun. Though as for supposedly Arabic music in Hulk or the Bush in black rubber, I don't think they're the craziest comic book conspiracy theory on this site. I'd say that would go to this Blade topic (http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/Forum13/HTML/000039.html).

-Xenos

[ToM]

Xenos, that Blade Trinity thing is...Bizarre. I do take disagreement though with the idea of these things regarding Batman Begins, or Hulk to be "conspiracies." Subtext is the general rule when it comes to film, even most television subjects. I mean, it isn't like some backwards recording on some "devilish rock and roll record."

The Hulk being a hero for resisting the military industrial complex *is* a very current attitude. I mean, it's not as though the public isn't filled with people critical of this factor in American life which is just swelling with the passing of years. Ross, the regimented personality, well, he'd naturally be in opposition to someone like The Hulk. After all, Hulk is the subconscious, with all of it's wishes of instantaneous gratification unleashed. He's a truly liberated individual, the antithesis of the military mind, the truly free individual in a system of government setting up greater restrictions in the name of security. The comic featured similar themes during the sixties, it only made sense to revisit them today. It just wasn't something enough people wanted to see.

Anyway Xenos, as for trolling, it seems our friend here is Hell-bent on *trying* to draw the conversation into other areas of his interest. Since first washing up in this thread he's been quick to notify us that he regularly argues with creationists, and then starts framing *this* discussion* more and more in those terms. You know, with I'm sure the intention of sparking some sort of debate along those lines here. He spouts off about how important citing sources is, then dedicates whole sections of his "case" to things he "remembers from '89." Then says the contradictions introduced to him from that same source aren't valid because the person in question is a liar. Here we go 'round the malberry bush, the malberry bush, the malberry bush....

Then he's calling names. He's repeating his "strawman" mantra the same way his "enemies" repeat, "May The Bible be the truth, and every man a liar!" lol! You know, as if that somehow qualifies what he's either said or denied. Then he suggests *I'm* the one trolling. (Just so you know, my National Geographic remark about Weekly World News is just that they've been caught with their pants down a ew times on "major finds" that turned out to be...well, something they should have known better about)

I figure the interesting bits of this thread are the portions that came about *without* *foam* frothing from the lips, you know? So, let's leave Bob Kane to natural selection or whatever, along with all those golden agers.

Anyway, I've been looking at a few of the trailers for films coming out shortly, and I then called up the Superbowl material for Batman Begins. What struck me was how Batman Begins doesn't seem....fun. The other movies play up the action, or the humor, or the irony. But Batman Begins seems to hang it's pitch to audiences on images of Batman himself "looking cool." It doesn't look *fun.* I mean, sure, this maybe sells it on you if you really love *that* look for Batman and have been clamoring for a new movie. But by this point we've *seen* this Batman version. Just seeing him again...I mean, what *is* that? What does it mean? That they're sending out another one?

Part of what always seems to get people I know excited about a film is that there's something *in* the ad that they talk about. There was something funny, or hip about the idea in the film, the way a line was given, just SOMETHING. Having Batman on screen with bats flying around, that tumbler driving through the water, Hell, we get that on ads for Ford trucks.

They can still turn it around, *if* they have the right content. I mean, how many versions of a Fantastic Four trailer have we witnessed come and go before that Showest footage got it down to the right note? Actually, that makes for a good example. The Fantastic Four film makes some changes that people find controversial, and there's some weak spots to be sure. Tim Story is a question mark on something of that scale, just as Nolan is on Batman Begins (with no question as to the power of Nolan's talent over Story, just that Story has vest of the X films overseeing sequences *for* him to help him through). But, with the humor there, the flash, it looks *fun.*

The other thing these teasers and trailers do is have some signature images or sequence, a showstopper. You know, something "breathtaking" where you're like, "Oh, wow." Watching The Human Torch dive from the top of a skyscraper, burst into flames, show his full "flame-form" or what have you, and adopt a chase scene with a heat seeking missile through crowded Manhattan streets and buildings was highly cool, very exciting to see, has that "gee whiz" comic-book movie factor. Batman Begins *needs* to start having something of *like* content, some big showy sequence in the teasers and trailers. I mean, it's a must for this genre now, has been for years.

For ages, comic book fans have asked, "Are *they* being respectful of the comic audience?" But this genre has now expanded so far, with budgets so large, that we're *forced* to be asking, "Are they doing what they need to so as to attract general audiences?" Because otherwise, this subgenre dies out. Sure, showing the rubber Batman is a winning point to those who'll never get tired of seeing a rubber Batman. Those aren't the people who're a problem to get into theaters. We've been talking a lot about how WB needs to inform audiences that this is a *new* Batman. But more importantly, we should be talking about how they need to say this is a *fun* Batman movie.

They also need to tell the audience that there's a STORY here. As of right now, the story the audience is getting is "Oh, this is the origin of Batman all over again, with the training sequences fit in." I'm sorry, but the origin of Batman is dull. And people know it, or *think* they know it. And having seen it a few times now, unless they hear there's more to this movie than two hours of *that*, they're not going to bite I think.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

ToM:


Be a man. If you are going to start a thread in which you make outrageous claims of a conspiratorial nature in order to slam a movie you have not seen, then stick by your claims.
Don't weasel out with an "Aw shucks...I wasn't REALLY saying that but the guy who jumped on my back sure was trying to [ insert additional conspiracy theory ]!"

You did not just come here and say what was at the core of your dislike of THIS Batman. Your primary objection is that you prefer the more or less "fun", even if formulaic and tired superhero action(ala Fantastic Four, previous Batman films, Spiderman etc.) to the Frank Miller-esque Batman of the comic books.

That is fine. I do not agree with it but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

What I jumped on you about was your transparent attempt to justify you opinion as if it were something more objective by asserting these political schemes and pop-psychology analyses.

Now if you cannot or for whatever reason do not wish to answer my points, that is also fine. I will not get all smug on you or kick you while you on your way out of the exchange, PROVIDED you bow out respectfully.

But you could not even manage to do THAT. You just HAD to spout more nonsense and insults under your breath.

Remember...it was YOU who made coments about the "10,000 year old Earth crowd". Since I thought this indicated an area we could both relate to, I then used this seeming common ground to explain further some of my own positions. To which YOU then turned around and his us with another slew of unrelated garbage about Darwin being a plagarist, National Geographic being a tabloid, Science being religion and religion trying to be science etc.

I was not responding to your troll with more trolls. I was just letting you know that if you were feeling secure in steering the debate in this direction, you should not. I was the wrong guy for that.

You seemed to realise this and genuinely not want to go there but your ego would not let you simply say "You are right. Darwin and Batman and Creationism are unrelated. Let's get back on topic...". Instead you opted to try back-door proddings/trolls and more mischaracterizations.


That will land you on my hit list faster than anything and regardless of where you try and steer the debate or where it ends up, I will emabrass you. I do not muck around with false modesty on this matter. I have seen what you got. I KNOW what you are bringing to the party.

Be a man. Conduct yourself with the mannerisms befitting an adult.


OR we can put each other on our respective ignore lists(note that this will not allow you free reign to spout off further nonsense in the future).

------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-28-2005).]

[ToM]

I cannot believe I'm going to waste my energy on you another time Skeptic, but I am. This whole "conspiracy" unicorn you're riding around on doesn't exist, never did. It's just a rabies induced hallucination you're experiencing.

I have repeated several times now that the subtext isn't some propaganda, isn't about "converting" people to a political agenda. It's about tapping into a sensibility in the society currently driving much of the populace. You tap the cultural zeitgeist, and you put a tiger in your box office tank. It's about trying to get your audience to identify your character with a cultural figure or icon that's *powerful* to them, so it imposes itself just as powerfully with them, gaining their favor.

There isn't any "conspiracy" involved in subtext. There wasn't any "conspiracy" when Singer and company put X2 on the screen and tapped our reservations over homeland security and the broad and sweeping authority it's allowed over the citizenry (exploring the possibilities that may unfold).

In the comics, the William Stryker character was a fundamentalist Christian, a Fallwell type. In the eighties, Fallwell and his "Moral Majority" were a major political threat to civil liberties. Claremont, when crafting his story, wanted to explore the threat in a science fiction setting. It was powerful because this was the figure that provoked a powerful emotional response in people, giving the narrative a more profound hold on the audience.

In the feature film adaptation, Stryker is modified into being a *Muslim*, because fundamentalist Muslims overseas are the fountainhead of our *new* threat to civil liberties. And in '03, the Internet was seeing this uproar by Muslims over this detail (found simply in Stryker's ring when reading something on the president's desk).

On the audio commentary track, Singer even responds to observations made again and again by the audience that his president resembles George W. Bush. People were reading into the film all manner of content about Bush (I wasn't one of them) to the point that Singer said something about that. And he said it was as simple as trying to pick somebody who looked like the current president because that's what you try to do when a president is shown in a movie. You keep it *current* feeling. No conspiracy there to boost, or bash the sitting leader.

The same is true I'm sure with Batman Begins. Only here IMO it takes on the form of audience exploitation, a very tasteless thing.

I did not say I'd rather see a fun, formulaic film to a Batman film. I merely stressed that to sell this to a summer audience, you must stress that it's a *fun* movie, not mindless or formulaic. One of my major issues with this film is that it IS a copy and pasted production. That's been one of the most bitter and continuous arguments here.

How 'bout a little fire scarecrow?

Incidentally (or "incendiarily" take your pick) pop-psychology is *key* to market research for motion picture advertising, as well as everything from cigarettes to "Axe Bodyspray." The entire reason we take enjoyment from the passive observation of events on a screen is due to our psychological manipulation by way of the content. Everything from camera positioning to lighting is undertaken with the psychological import taken into consideration (how does this make the audience *feel*, does it draw them into the sequence).

As for kicking me, just keep doing it. You're not drawing any bruises, and you're only making yourself out to be more ignorant moment by moment with the calling of names, the dragging the debate off from the subject, you're all over the place like a drunk in a lane change. This doesn't represent the skills of an accomplished debater, but a ranter.

As to the "ten thousand year old earth crowd" you assumed I'd be on com on ground with you, and you're correct. Only as an educated person, I understand that the Darwin camp is often more silly than the creationists. I didn't steer clear of this because I understood how "formidable" you are, but because I didn't want this subject hijacked by a hack. If you were as "educated" as you claimed you'd be aware that historians *note* that Darwin's family were mailing him articles about Wallace and his theories on his trip to a certain little island. Darwin faces the same academic skepticism that Shakespeare does (in case you haven't heard, historians, many of them suspect he didn't write *all* that was attributed to him).

Oh, I'm going to be on your "hit list" am I? Yeah, you sure sound well rounded. That's balanced. Do you honestly think this makes you sound more credible? Juvenile. Pedestrian. You're going to embaress me? Look pally, you're embarrassing *yourself*, even if you're unaware of this. Man, I'm nearly embarrassed for you.

ToM


------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[Kwick22a]

Well, it seems to me that you two have pretty much fought to a standstill. Neither one of you is going to convince the other of anything. So you could either keep arguing about this, or you could just agree to disagree and let things be.

Kwick - He who expresses an opinion because he can.

[CaptainSkeptic]

There isn't any "conspiracy" involved in subtext. There wasn't any "conspiracy" when Singer and company put X2 on the screen and tapped our reservations over homeland security and the broad and sweeping authority it's allowed over the citizenry (exploring the possibilities that may unfold).

You see, it is another irony here that you refer to my pointing out of logical fallacies as a "mantra"(re: "Strawman mantra" in your previous post) but you keep repeating the SAME FALLACIES!


"So Jack, what's up?"

"My name is not Jack. It's Steve."

"How you been Jack?"

"My name is Steve."

"SO Jack, how are the kids?"

"My name is not Jack, my name is Steve."


"Man! What is with you and your "Steve" mantra? You got some fetish with the name Steve?!?"


See how silly that is? THe sensible thing to do would be to stop commiting the same errors, not jump on someone for correcting you.

The above is, again a strawman. I never said anything about subtext or Brian Singer or that movies did not attempt to stay current or remain culturally relevant. In fact we are in full agreement on that point(except that I do not see this as an indication of poor movie making in itself).

My problems were with YOUR specific conspiracy theories that YOU presented. These were not obvious bits of subtext or Bryan Singer using a president that looked like Bush or any such thing. You were claiming the as yet unreleased Batman Begins was subpar and attempting to substantiate your personal preferences/opinions via ridiculous and unfounded conspiracy thories that had nothing to do with subtext in movies.

In the comics, the William Stryker character was a fundamentalist Christian, a Fallwell type. In the eighties...(blah blah blah. Bunch of stuff we already know snipped)

*Yawn*

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>On the audio commentary track, Singer even responds to observations made again and again by the audience that his president resembles George W. Bush. People were reading into the film...(MORE?!?)


*Twiddles thumbs waiting for ToM to arrive at point.


The same is true I'm sure with Batman Begins. Only here IMO it takes on the form of audience exploitation, a very tasteless thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Ah...FINALLY!

What?!? Just another bald assertion about Begins being exploitive?!? I waded through all that crap expecting you would eventually arrive at some point just to be treated to THAT?!

[quote]I did not say I'd rather see a fun, formulaic film to a Batman film.


You lauded the FF movie based on seeing the Show west trailer footage. The script, the plot and trailers for the FF movie conclusively demonstrate we are going to be treated to the same tired old PG-13 action-adventure superhero movie chock full of bad one-liners and bland stereotypes.

I am not saying that FF should be "dark" or moody. That would be lame and out of place. But if you cannot find a way to truly make the film something less(ironically enough) copy/paste or "me too!" amongst C2Fs then expect reviews to be as they will.

What I don't get from you is that you try and build a case that Batman Begins, the ONE TIME in history that something different is being attempted in regards to Batman's translation to the big screen, is a "copy/paste" effort while applauding FF which is DEMONSTRABLY a copy/paste effort!? Look at how Doom is presented? Look at the overall plot? Look at the miscasting of Alba(right up there with Billy Dee as Harvey Dent).

I will probably go see FF and I may even have fun. The difference is that I will not torch FF by trying to make an impossible case that it is a rip off of Snow Falling on White Cedars while applauding "Mutant X" as something unique.


I merely stressed that to sell this to a summer audience, you must stress that it's a *fun* movie, not mindless or formulaic.


First of all, false dichotomy. Whether a movie is "fun" or "dark" or something else has nothing to do with whether is it mindless and formulaic. In fact it is the "fun" movies that have historically tended towards mindless formulae(e.g. any Lethal Weapon sequel).

Second, it is high time that people started making movies with the intent of making GOOD movies rather than with the intent of "selling it to the lowest common denominator". I am not saying that this trend will stop with the release of Batman Begins or anytime soon. Just that I do not follow your obsession with grading a movie's quality based on how you feel it will play to the summer audience.


One of my major issues with this film is that it IS a copy and pasted production.


You can repeat this claim all you want. The frequency with which you repeat this will not make it anymore true the 100th time than it was the first time.

That's been one of the most bitter and continuous arguments here.

???

That has been YOUR(and your's ALONE) argument. I do not see what you get from labeling your argument "bitter" and "contentious"(are not all arguments "contentious" by nature and definition??)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Incidentally (or "incendiarily" take your pick) pop-psychology is *key* to market research for motion picture advertising, as well as everything from cigarettes...(MORE irrelevant stuff we already know which does not support his position one bit!?!)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


No one was downplaying the importance of psychology. What I was contending was YOUR uninformed attempts at pop-psychology.


As for kicking me, just keep doing it. You're not drawing any bruises, and you're only making yourself out to be more ignorant moment by moment with the calling of names,


I interupt this rant to note that ToM has, once again, engaged in name-calling to draw attention to my name-calling responses.


Oh and the judges have me unanimously winning by KO(and severe bruising) in the second round.


I return you to your regularly scheduled rant.

... the dragging the debate off from the subject, you're all over the place like a drunk in a lane change. This doesn't represent the skills of an accomplished debater, but a ranter.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

As to the "ten thousand year old earth crowd" you assumed I'd be on com on ground with you, and you're correct. Only as an educated person, I understand that the Darwin camp is often more silly than the creationists.


See, now you just could not resist could you? You just HAD to troll for an argument about Darwin no matter how unrelated the subject is! And just to make absolutely SURE you would get me to respond(so you could no doubt try and spin things so that I am the weasel here) you had to try and refer to yourself as "educated" and point to THAT as the "difference" between us. You end by attempting to substantiate your bald assertion(that your position is the "educated" one) by restating your ad populi about the "Darwin camp" being "more silly than the creationists...".

Of note is the fact that you NEVER, not ONCE attempt to identify your specifc contentions(I wonder why :rolleyes http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/smile.gif with the "Darwin camp"(and by association ALL biologists, paleontologists and most every other type of scientist working in even the most tangentially related fields), nor do you supply any evidence to substantiate whatever your contentions may be.
I could guess of course, being intimately familiar with the arguments of evolution deniers and how to refute them, but this is THE WRONG THREAD!

When you first refered to the silliness of the "10,000 year old Earth crowd", I responded telling you that I debated creationists regularly, NOT to steer the debate toward these unrelated matters but to try and find common ground from which I could make my points understood by you.

You replied by making nebulous, unfounded and irrelevant assertions about Darwin(incidentally, historians do not think Darwin plagarised Wallace any more than comic book historians think that "Doom Patrol" was a rip off of X-Men or anymore than Television historians believe that the Munsters was a rip off of The Adams Family. You are going by urban legends and distorted facts.)

I didn't steer clear of this because I understood how "formidable" you are, but because I didn't want this subject hijacked by a hack.


And yet YOU, a hack, have hijacked it(and it was your own thread!?! LOL!!).

If you were as "educated" as you claimed you'd be aware that historians *note* that Darwin's family were mailing him articles about Wallace and his theories on his trip to a certain little island.


False! Wallace claimed to have been inspired by a "fevered dream" to write up his original paper which described the processes of natural selection, which he sent to Darwin for review and possible publication. Both Wallace's paper along with a letter Darwin wrote to Asa Gray were presented to the the Linnean Society in 1858(why would Darwin go to the trouble of presenting Wallaces fully credited paper to the rest of his peers if he intended to plagarise him?!?). Darwin's The Orgin of Species won out over and eclipsed Wallace's paper in 1859 by sheer qualify of the work. Truthfully Darwin was already toying around with and formulating ideas of Natural Selection long before Wallace had his fever dream but Wallace could not have known this.

Both Darwin AND Wallace were inspired by an article written by Thomas Malthus on population increase and food production.

Where Wallace and Darwin had their ONE beef(Wallace himself never believed Darwin plagiarised him) was due to Darwin being a materialist and naturalist while Wallace fell prey to spiritualist and psychic con games. Wallace was convinced that evolution would never explain consciousness whereas Darwin saw no reason for this to be true(and it turns out Darwin was right of course).


Darwin faces the same academic skepticism that Shakespeare does (in case you haven't heard, historians, many of them suspect he didn't write *all* that was attributed to him).

Again, you have "conspiracy theories"(and urban legends) mixed up with "academic skepticism". They are not at ALL the same thing(in fact academic skepticism most often refutes these sorts of claims).

Oh, I'm going to be on your "hit list" am I? Yeah, you sure sound well rounded. That's balanced. Do you honestly think this makes you sound more credible?


What the HELL are you talking about?


Juvenile. Pedestrian. You're going to embaress me? Look pally, you're embarrassing *yourself*, even if you're unaware of this. Man, I'm nearly embarrassed for you.


Yeah, tell you what junior. We can meet an ANY forum(Belief.net neutral enough for you?) and debate any of this nonsense of yours and we'll see.

A little advice though(as a regular of literally thousands of hours worth of internet debate at a multitude of web forums), pretending to be some cultural elitist snob and refering to your betters as "juvenile" or "pedestrian" while simultnaeously crying about "name calling" won't get you far.

------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-30-2005).]

[ToM]

Fantastic Four and Batman Begins face very distinctive challenges, and the expectations for them are just as distinctive.

Chiefly, the Fantastic Four suffer as being the template for "The Marvel Way" of comics, as well as the entire "universe" of characters, and employment of characters. As the template, everything will resemble them a bit in all manner of ways, tone, feel, humor, themes. Right now, they're coming a little late to the theatrical release party. Should their material be modified to overcome this, because they're such a simple concept, a danger exists in that they'll no longer *be* the Fantastic Four. So much of them will be cliche', but that can only be changed so much before they've disfigured the entire concept.

The Fantastic Four comic started out as a highly inventive reshoot on the superhero concept for the period. Later, the trouble it faced was that it became very much a paint by numbers, because it was so imitated. When it was self referential, it might as well have been referencing the entire superhero industry.

Still, one advantage they have is that these characters haven't been brought to the big screen before (The Incredibles notwithstanding). That said, they have no theatrical *history* to hold them back. The casting isn't going to be seen as a step *down*, in the same way that casting smaller names for the Spider-Man films wasn't a disappointment.

The hilarious thing here isn't that we should expect the Fantastic Four film to be "high art", but that there are people out there who honestly assume Batman Begins *will* be such. Batman Begins is every bit the Copy And Paste Picture Show, and I suspect a bit more than just that.

Besides, the whole point to advertising is to sell the product to people who *might* not go see it. If there's an audience that's going to go no matter what, you only need to tell them the picture will be there for them. If Batman Begins wants to find tickets in hands, it'd better start looking like a good time at the movies.

It just isn't enough to show rubber Batman standing there, because *he* is no longer associated with "good" movies. He's associated with craptaculars and, good Lord, ON STAR GPS systems! Come on, WB put Batman out on the streets of Gothan to turn tricks in that rubber get-up. Batman= product placements,= craptacular movies. The last *well received* Batman was more than a decade ago.

So, with Batman having to live up to being a good movie, and other films to live *down* at the same time, something Fantastic Four isn't burdened with, expectations are different. The other thing Fantastic Four is doing is taking the kinds of super-antics the general audience *loved* in X2, and taking them the next step up. They're *building* on what came before while they're also imitating that material.

Meanwhile, I don't think there's anybody who can say that Batman Begins is *building* on the past two Spider-Man films, or, for that matter, anything else that's been out. It isn't going one up, it's just going on screens this summer. That doesn't mean it'll be a bad film, but that's not enough these days to hit three hundred million.

Now, as for the burden of history, Batman Begins drops from bad guy big names like Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones in a picture to...some no name in a scarecrow mask along with Liam Neeson. They go from Michelle Phieffer and Uma Thurman, even Drew Barrymore, to Katie Holmes. Fantastic Four has lower case names, but it doesn't have a *history* to live up to with the cast.

To compensate, Batman *must* hit the audience with fun stuff. Trust me, general audiences don't go to superhero movies because they want to see a serious drama. If they want that, they'll go see Oldboy, or whatever *real* drama is out on screens this year. Drama has a place in this subgenre, but the "cool" factor, the "fun" factor must be there in a big way.

These Batman Begins teasers do-not give anything we haven't gotten from Batman before. We see him swinging, walking around, turning and looking to the camera, the Batmobile rushing out of the Batcave. I mean, so what? We see him ice skating. Please.

Look, Star Wars is out, War of The Worlds is out, Fantastic Four is out, many * other* "fantastical" features are out. In the good old days of Batman movies, *this* particular niche wasn't so filled up. This time out, there's virtually no room left. Without the star power to draw audiences in, it *must* use the *fun* factor, the "gee golly" factor. And it's important that they do, because these other films are *thriving* on that element. Batman Begins must feature this detail just as well if it hopes to compete.

Now, as for casting, I don't consider Alba miscast at all. She's not an actress with the greatest of depth, but neither is the character she's playing. Sue starts out in the comics as being twenty six, she fits the bill in terms of age. They also needed an actress who knows who to find her mark in an action sequence, operate in a harness and all the related bits so as to have an easier dialog with trainers. Alba knows her way around this due to her Dark Angel work. And she's good enough in that setting to headline her own series. Sure, not a problem. Fantastic Four has *other* problems, but she isn't one of them.

And it hardly matters if this is a "new" translation of Batman on the screen. It's fully capable of being copy and paste at the same time. I'm not trying to say that in creative terms Fantastic Four will be any better or worse. I'm just saying the expectations are different there.

Also, I'm not grading the film based on what the summer audience has by way of taste. I'm saying that if you want a successful film, there are certain things you need to do to make sure that it is. You can take chances, but you *must* convince people they'll get what they want from the thing. Batman already is handicapped convincing people of this given the past films. And in order to reach three hundred million and *be* a domestic success, it'll have to be a *great* movie, not an okay, or even solid film. I'm not getting a "daring new vision" sense from this thing. It seems like copy and paste with a dose of pretentiousness.

Skeptic, you're far from being any real skeptic. You're gullible to your own preconceived notions. You look at criticisms of "camps" existing in academia in black and white terms, just as any dogmatic does. And you know, this is the hallmark of the sub educated. See, the sub educated individual hasn't the faintest understanding of how a field like "evolutionary theory" exists in deeply stratified forms.

I see that you're not going to leave this one alone till I give you something, so here it is (and that's the end of it because it's obvious to all that you're simply trying to hijack this thread to suit your own peculiar interests and "needs") Look, as for my position on Darwin, any educated person *knows* full well that positions related to him are being re thought all the time, and some of his "people" (meaning his dogmatic devotees, not everyone in the scientific establishment) are just like dogs with bones. They're the ones who slow up the advance of scientific knowledge, not religious individuals, naysayers, who are *not* operating within the field.

Just as an example Ian Tattersal, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York went and did something rather novel. He went and examined *firsthand* all of the "human ancestors" collected around the world since such research started. And when he was done, he told Rick Potts, head pf paleontology at the Smithsonian, "Rick, we've got it all wrong." Now, he wasn't saying the theory in *general* was all wrong, just the so called "tree of man." There is currently (according to Tattersal) *no* discernible path of descent. Most of these creatures *thought* to be in a direct line, are nothing of the kind, simply extinct animals of a similar pedigree.

Now, if "the Darwin camp" (as in one of *many* "camps" in competition) hadn't been so inflexible, hadn't been so uncritical as to let these things go without examining them all firsthand, we'd have advanced to a better understanding by *now.* But it was the slavishly *acceptance* of the "party line" that allowed this misunderstanding to go on so long. Was it the creationists who fouled this up for science? Of course not. It was the dogmatic element sleeping in the Darwin bunks.

It's all well and good for people like you to rattle off the names of legitimate scientific disciplines with which Darwn has been associated. But that doesn't mean people in the field of evolutionary studies aren't holding science back with their dogma. And *nobody* interested in knowledge should be patient with such ingrown intellectualism. And Skeptic, your acceptance, or "allegiance" with this concept doesn't make you "enlightened." All it does is make you *willingly* ignorant, just as it does so many who operate in that field, in the same way that some religious people shout down discoveries with some mantra.

As for National Geographic! If you're a "skeptic" I'd think have some appreciation for the laughing stock they've made themselves on a number of occasions.

The March 2000 issue of National Geographic was the issue that was to feature the magazine's retraction of all their bold proclamations about the theropod (dinosaur) to bird theory as they relate to a series of Chinese fossils. They'd had a cover story on what they claimed as a fossil that *proved* dinosaurs came from birds. It turned out to be a fake. This Well, there are several very curious details about this retraction.

The first detail that seems obviously suspicious has to do with timing. Bill Allen, editor of National Geographic told the Associated Press that had he known prior to publication that there was anything suspicious about the series of fossils he would have yanked the article. Yet, a representative of the Smithsonian communicated with Geographic several times before publication about the problems with the fossils (they were fake). This was in November. So as early as November they already knew a problem existed.

Next, Geographic got word from China that the fossils were unauthentic. This information had arrived before December 20th as on that date Geographic made alterations to a public display that featured the fossils. This alteration went so far as to say that "questions have been raised as to the fossils' origins." This of course isn't strong enough language to allow those reading it to understand the false nature of the fossils. Maybe that was the point?

So Geographic knew the fossils were suspicious in November and as early as December 20th they knew they were fake. This might have been too late to include a message from the editor in that month's issue alerting readers to their irresponsible reporting. But surely there was enough time to include some mention of it in the January installment. And to be sure there would be ample time to correct such a terrible mistake by the time of the February issue.

When does the retraction turn up? It's in the March issue. Why correct the problem so late? I could see them wanting to spend some time putting together a thoughtful editorial on this. But as the mention of it in the March issue is so brief and so uninvolved? There's no reason for it not to have been included earlier.

As things present themselves it looks as though Geographic wanted some damage control on the situation. Like if they put enough distance between their bold reporting and the clarification of the nature of the fossils it would impact their readers less. It could suggest that they're hoping the readers won't notice the mistake.

And that brings me to the next suspicious detail. When Geographic finally stops dragging their feet about admitting they pawned off fakes onto the public...where in the magazine do they disclose this information? It's not in an editorial. It's not in a supplement either. They place the information in, of all places, the letters forum!

Now, the whole point to their article on these Chinese fossils was to state in no meek wording that the issue of the origins of birds had been conclusively decided. This is huge story. And anything relating to it would at least be worthy of being mentioned first in the reader's forum. Yet, what is the first detail dicussed? Photographs of The Inca Empire and East Africa (introduced by Allen). So, the correction of what was one of their biggest stories ever doesn't even get top notice in the section they place it in.

Bill Allen's notification to his readership of publishing a huge misrepresentation of science in his magazine is placed in the middle of several pages worth of reader's mail. Boy, did they bury this thing or what? It obviously seems that they placed this somewhere that would allow for it to be easily overlooked. It's not as though they drew an arrow to the correction.

The correction by Allen is placed in response to a letter from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The author of the letter, Xu Xing mentions that he discovered the nature of the fossils being unauthentic by comparing them with specimens in a private collection.

But it is what he says of one of the creatures represented in Geographic's article that is staggering. He says, "I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, (to those he compared them with in another collection) but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body."

In Bill Allen's response to this letter (that he had before December 20th) he states that researchers in the US have confirmed what Xu Xing reported. This they accomplished using CT scans of the Archaeoraptor specimen. Allen doesn't at any point here go so far as to directly address the specimen as a fake (as others have done). He only mentions the forgery as "anomalies in the fossils construction." Talk about sugar coating a fiasco. As it turned out, the fossils were held together using GLUE! This is an obvious forgery!

As for the future, Allen mentions that when studies are complete details of the Archaeoraptor specimen and the technologies that revealed "anomalies in the fossils construction" will be published. Here's what I find amusing about this, he's still calling the forgery Archaeoraptor. Obviously, that's not what it is! The specimen isn't a specimen of anything at all! It's a composite of fossils that have no relationship to each other!

Maybe he's hoping that if they don't call it anything else, if they keep that name on it...in the future we'll forget this ever happened and take it for what they reported it as. Some people just never learn from the past that they spend so much time in the study of. Well, in time the findings were published and the facts about the glue were revealed. But I still laugh about how Geographic said that if they had *any* doubt* they'd *not* have put up their display, published what they did, and so on. But months in advance the curator of birds at Smithsonian *warned* them about problems!

What a joke.

Oh, here's another silly one for you. On April 21 of 2000 Science published that a fossil mass within the chest cavity of an ornithischian dinosaur was a fossil heart with four chambers. Paul Fisher and Dale Russell of North Carolina State University led the study and claimed that this was evidence for these creatures having warm blood (and this aids the dino-to- bird theory).

They based their conclusions on computer tomography scans of the fossil mass. Their paper talked up the differences between warm blooded and cold blooded animals and reptiles. Critics claimed that Science sent the paper by Paul Fisher and Dale Russell *only* to those known to favor the theropod to bird theory for reveiw. Sure enough as you'd expect, whoever the scientists who reveiwed it were, they agreed with the findings. I say "whoever" they were because at a meeting over comparative physiology...nobody would confess to having reviewed the paper. Strange.

Another strange detail was that the fossil was taken from the Hell's Creek formation in South Dakota. And this formation doesn't contain the types of sediment in which soft tissues like flesh can be fossilized! Since its impossible to have a heart form into a fossil in that formation, the "heart" must only be a lump of mud that's since been fossilized. So, a fake heart was the subject of a paper that was sent only to those who would favor the idea and go along with it. And later on, when caught red handed, nobody wants to confess.

So, my question is, *who* are the people damanging science and the reputation of Darwin? Is it the religious crowd, or is it foolish, dogmatic researchers who're unwilling to alter the veiws to suit the changing facts, or willing to prop up faked evidence (or worse, overlook faked evidence) to "establish" what they promote as truth. The truth reveals itself in a lab. If you must jiggle the table, then you're looking at it the wrong way. Only *objectivity* in the lab can produce the knowledge we require. I won't even get into "directed panspermia" but I find the whole "space monsters" theory side splitting. But let's bash Louis Leakey, and rightfully instead.

Leakey digs up a skull near the Omo River in Ethiopia back in '67. They date the skull, and get an age that doesn't track with the "accepted" theory as it then stood. Rather than consider the standing theory tentative, as he should, they write it off. They dated it at 130,000 years, but the dogmatics of the time said that was too old for "modern" humankind. So, this thing was dragged out a whole generation later, made subject to the more advanced technology of today. Turns out that this human being lived around 195,000 years back. Whoops.

This was a *major* find, think of how an entire generation of knowledge was held back because Leakey didn't want to challenge the existing Darwinian thinking because of *bias*, because of the dogmatic nature of the dominant academics. Wasn't the creationists holding up this knowledge, was it? No, it was the bias in favor of a specific line of thought, a theory not treated as tentative, but as a truth beacon.

Your attitude here is entirely unacceptable, because it infers that if we're inpatient with *researchers* for their folly, we're not better than the ten thousand year old earth crowd denying "facts." But *these* researchers *deny* facts even more profoundly, by *modifying* them to suit *their* views. The creationists *cannot* harm science. Only dogmatism in place of objectivity can do that. And people like *you* allow *these* sorts of antics to go on and on. Because as * you* see it, the only people "critical" of the "honesty" of researchers, the only ones who approach it with skepticism (essential in keeping it all honest) are *creationists.* And that's flat out wrong.

Oh sure, we can talk about peer reviewed materials. But that isn't going to be worth too much when "peers" with the same bias can clear each other's work and give us lumps of mud and tell us it's really a fossil heart. Who watches the watchmen? Well, other watchmen. Let's hope *they* don't have a bias as well. The point is, you have to be uetterly childish to just swallow these things as they're spoon fed the public, because of these problems. Yet, you trumpet yourself "intelligent" because you drink this stuff from a big spoon, whereas only "creationists" and the uneducated approach such data with a skeptical eye. Blindly accepting anything is hardly intellectual freedom. The willingly ignorant.

"May Darwin be the truth, and every man a liar!"

Man, you sound exactly like those you criticize. From where I sit, there really isn't much distinction.

I enjoy how you refer to yourself as my "better" when you've stooped to name calling, idle threats of "cyber stalking me" on your "hit list, warning me to make up or be foloowed around or whatever. Yeah, you're balanced. Oh, and your account of Wallace and Darwin is missing a few chapters. You know, like *why* Wallace *had* to address the issue of plagiarism with regard to Charlie. And you leave out that Wallace *refused* to attend Darwin's funeral. Gee, doesn't sound like he was annoyed with something the old boy did, does it? Like maybe ripped him off?

You know, another bit you don't mention about the issue is how good old Darwin had been reading the material of Edward Blyth whilst shipping along on The Beagle. Darwin's very copy of the magazine where he read the material *shows* that he made use of Blyth's concepts the very same year Darwin claimed to have come up with the idea, yet, in reality, wrote the same basic paper.

Basically, the Wallace rip-off can be excused more easily if you don't consider that Darwin seems to have had a *habit* of sampling the works of others. Blyth could take a dive because his ideas were *creationist* in nature, Wallace was given to all manner of kooky ideas, Darwin, by sitting still and not overreaching in claims, came out looking the most sober minded. But this idea that there are *no* academics who consider him a plagiarist, or *possibly* a plagiarist is just kneejerk dogmatics. Even Shakespearephiles don't *deny* that some academics consider that he didn't write everything attributed to his pen. They simply discount the evidence.

Anyway, I'm putting up a "don't feed the troll" sign now. You can go drip froth over at origins.blaghblagh now or something, since it seems like that's what gets you all lathered up. But as you seemed to be pushing towards me being some "double secret creationist" or whatever, trying to paint me into what your perceived "enemies" are ( so you could "mark me" or whatever) I had to nicely do away with that.

Now, go play in the sand box.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[Majik1387]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Still, one advantage they have is that these characters haven't been brought to the big screen before (The Incredibles notwithstanding). That said, they have no theatrical *history* to hold them back. The casting isn't going to be seen as a step *down*, in the same way that casting smaller names for the Spider-Man films wasn't a disappointment.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not true, there was a low budget movie made long ago in the nineties of the Fantastic Four, and since the reviews were so bad, they took it out of theaters withing two days as I recall. And as for the Incredibles, they ripped off the Fantastic Four. As for Spiderman having a small name cast: Tobey Maguire and William Dafoe were not small name stars before Spiderman, they were just as big and they still are. Surely you don't think that Kirsten Dunst was considered small name before that movie, with all the movies she made. Same thing with Cliff Robertson who's made many great movies and J.K. Simmons from highly appreciated movies and the show "OZ". As for the Fantastic Four having a small name cast, the only one who is really considered small name is Chris Evans.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Batman Begins is every bit the Copy And Paste Picture Show, and I suspect a bit more than just that.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly which movie(s) is it copying and pasting from? Just name the movie(s) and don't explain how it is supposedly copied, movie title(s) only.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> It just isn't enough to show rubber Batman standing there, because *he* is no longer associated with "good" movies. He's associated with craptaculars and, good Lord, ON STAR GPS systems! Come on, WB put Batman out on the streets of Gothan to turn tricks in that rubber get-up. Batman= product placements,= craptacular movies. The last *well received* Batman was more than a decade ago.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course when something is popular, companies want to get in on it. VISA has the marvel heroes, Pepsi has movie stars and musicians/singers, and other commercials have other kinds of pop culture involved in the ads.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Meanwhile, I don't think there's anybody who can say that Batman Begins is *building* on the past two Spider-Man films, or, for that matter, anything else that's been out. It isn't going one up, it's just going on screens this summer. That doesn't mean it'll be a bad film, but that's not enough these days to hit three hundred million.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I keep on wondering why you refer to three hundred million. Where are your statistics? Again don't explain them just say where you got them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> To compensate, Batman *must* hit the audience with fun stuff. Trust me, general audiences don't go to superhero movies because they want to see a serious drama. If they want that, they'll go see Oldboy, or whatever *real* drama is out on screens this year. Drama has a place in this subgenre, but the "cool" factor, the "fun" factor must be there in a big way.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You really don't have an idea of what audiences want to see do you? Film producers dont just waste money on movies that are gonna be crap, I mean, sure it will be crap to some people, but there's still gonna be people who love the movie.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> the Batmobile rushing out of the Batcave. I mean, so what? We see him ice skating.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHY do you keep bringing up Batman on Ice. We get it, it sucks.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Also, I'm not grading the film based on what the summer audience has by way of taste. I'm saying that if you want a successful film, there are certain things you need to do to make sure that it is. You can take chances, but you *must* convince people they'll get what they want from the thing. Batman already is handicapped convincing people of this given the past films. And in order to reach three hundred million and *be* a domestic success, it'll have to be a *great* movie, not an okay, or even solid film. I'm not getting a "daring new vision" sense from this thing. It seems like copy and paste with a dose of pretentiousness.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Listen, take it from someone who has family in the entertainment industry, you have no idea what you're talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> Skeptic, you're far from being any real skeptic. You're gullible to your own preconceived notions. You look at criticisms of "camps" existing in academia in black and white terms, just as any dogmatic does. And you know, this is the hallmark of the sub educated. See, the sub educated individual hasn't the faintest understanding of how a field like "evolutionary theory" exists in deeply stratified forms.

I see that you're not going to leave this one alone till I give you something, so here it is (and that's the end of it because it's obvious to all that you're simply trying to hijack this thread to suit your own peculiar interests and "needs") Look, as for my position on Darwin, any educated person *knows* full well that positions related to him are being re thought all the time, and some of his "people" (meaning his dogmatic devotees, not everyone in the scientific establishment) are just like dogs with bones. They're the ones who slow up the advance of scientific knowledge, not religious individuals, naysayers, who are *not* operating within the field.
</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Darwin relates in no way to this topic so let's not mention it again.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToM:
<B> As for National Geographic! If you're a "skeptic" I'd think have some appreciation for the laughing stock they've made themselves on a number of occasions.

The March 2000 issue of National Geographic was the issue that was to feature the magazine's retraction of all their bold proclamations about the theropod (dinosaur) to bird theory as they relate to a series of Chinese fossils. They'd had a cover story on what they claimed as a fossil that *proved* dinosaurs came from birds. It turned out to be a fake. This Well, there are several very curious details about this retraction.

ToM

</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The National Geographic March 2000 issue had nothing to do with birds the only topics they had were: Madidi National Park, which dealt with a hydroelectric dam; Bugging Out, which dealt with killer pigs; Arctic Submarine, which dealt with our changing climates; Ancient Greece III, which dealt with Alexander the Great; Hard Rock Legacy, which dealt with metals like gold and silver; Stone Cold Ascent; which dealt with rock-climbing; and Beijing, which dealt with Beijing.

Check the official National Geogrphic website:
nationalgeographic.com

[This message has been edited by Majik1387 (edited 03-29-2005).]

[ToM]

Majik, you're right that an earlier Fantastic Four film *was* made, but it never went into threaters. The story there was this, a company held the rights to make a Fantastic Four film for *many* years, going back to the 70's, and the *rights* to produce a film were about to elapse. The contract with Marvel said they had a certain time limit to enter into production on a film, or, lose the rights they paid a great deal of capital to gain.

The result of this was that the producer decided to rush into production (at the eleventh hour) a shoe-string adaptation. This film, with a sticker price of three million dollars was *never* intended to be released theatrically, or directly to video. It was just a means to hold onto the rights to make the film when enough capital and talent could be generated. That never ahppened, and the rights went to 20th Century Fox.

Fox currently owns the FF. film in question, and has kept it out from public sight. Still, bootlegs copies of the flick float around comic conventions and ebay all the time.

Anyway, the situation would still be the same with the current movie, it has no big name star history. And hey, this new film is still a huge step up from that low budget original (although I suspect the studio worries about how comparable their "Thing" rubber suit compares to the first, looking a little too like it for all the cost)

As for Tobey Maguire, he wasn't any sort of star, having "star power" at the time. Now, DeFoe, sure. But Dunst and Maguire aren't Nicholson and Phieffer, know what I mean? They were known for being child actors.

As for Batman Begins copying and pasting, I've already gone over
(and over and over) what movies largely this stuff seems copied and pasted from, come on man, play along.

Yes, companies want to associate their products with popular characters. But notice that when Visa gets to use Spider-Man, they don't get to use the *movie* incarnation, it's a different Spider-Man outfit. WB sold out the rubber Batman, Batmobile, and all to sell On Star products. I just can't look at that rubber-man anymore and not see those ads. This was just one more reason they had to change that look, and one more reason that it's blindingly stupid that they didn't. WB isn't interested in the "character" of Batman, they're interested in the whole shmeere, Batman as industry.

Joel Shuma--- I can't bring myself to say the name, anyway, this nameless person has stated for the record that after Batman Returns WB was nearly about to drop the entire franchise. Even though the film was a huge success, many of the tie-in products were going to be lost to them in the future. The food companies and so on were *very* upset about the dark tone, the kinky nature, the disgusting "eating" sequences, the violence, and were really unhappy to hav etheir products associated with Batman Returns. ( Who wants to eat a "Mcfish sandwitch" and think about The Penguin eating that raw fish?)

So, the insanity at WB ran like this, they could have a hit movie, a movie that would bring in around three hundred million, but if they couldn't have these other product placements there and make millions more in extra cash, they didn't want *any* Batman franchise. The proverbial dog with two bones.

This is why they took Burton off and put you know who in his stead.

Yes, all studios want to cash in on backdoor marketing. But with WB, the idea that they'd drop a popular franchise because they'd lose some of the more lucrative deals just stinks of the backdoor marketing being of greater importance to them than the films themselves. It just cracks me up when people talk about "the integrity" of any given Batman outing at WB. That doesn't exist! Batman is a *farm* for WB.

Now, as for three hundred million and my statistics, yes, I *have* explained them. Look, for a film to be considered a success it must return the production investment *plus* introduce to the studio enough cash on top of it to have made the time and money worthwhile. This movie costs better than one hundred and eighty million to make. And it has an advertising budget of one million dollars. We're talking about a movie that in order to recoup the investment, *must* make at least three hundred million domestic dollars.

Now, what are "domestic dollars" anyway? Money made within the United States. With the international box office so important to the industry these days, why is the domestic dollar of such value? Well, the domestic interest decides what goes into future production, it gages the appetites of the general audience. In short, it marks *trends.* American movies are made with *American* tastes in mind. Actually, many American companies own French film studios, and they press them to make "French films that Americans will want to buy or go see in indie theaters." Movies are made for Americans.

If Batman Begins doesn't make the cash back, plus more, it'll be done for another ten years or so.

Film producers aren't interested in churning out crap movies??? No I've heard everything. Look, producers will turn out whatever will sell. Did *anybody* think that Soul Plane was going to be a quality picture? How about Wishmaster Part Three?

I understand what you mean though, "some" people will always have fun at a movie, no matter what sort of bad film it is. But in order to generate hundreds of millions of dollars it has to please not some sliver of people (like a lower scale production like Wishmaster Three could handle) but "the general audience." See, it just costs too much to do less than that.

There were far more people wanting to see a new Matrix series than a new Batman series, and the third film tanked. It just didn't measure up after everything else that was out. I see *nothing* about Batman Begins in the teasers and trailers that says, "This is a GREAT movie everybody! Coem and see it! Wow!" And that's what it needs.

Okay, so you have family in the entertainment industry. So, tell me then how a film that will have cost a studio nearly three hundred million dollars need not make *at least* three hundred million back and *not* be considered a box office disappointment? If you gave me three hundred bucks, and I gave you one seventy five back, wouldn't *you* be dissapointed?

Now, there's the whole DVD, international release angle. These can help the bills roll in. They sure helped The Hulk make an investment, right along with all the other backdoor marketing. But you'll notice that Universal isn't hot to make another Hulk film, and only Avi Arad is talking about another one being made. That's because nobody wants to make a film that's so costly and turns in so little at the box office, even if it makes money back through other means.

See, a company like WB or Universal is split up into divisions (if you're going to throw the "my family works in entertainment card" you should know this). They have for example, a television division, a motion picture division, and so on. And the heads of each department are responsible to the parent company for the *success* of their ventures). Nobody wants to have one more box office misfire, or unacceptable expenditure on their score sheet.

As for the March 2000 issue of National Geographic, didn't you *read* what I said? That issue was to feature the *retraction* of a story. That means they were to *take back* what they'd said in an earlier issue and clear up their mistake. And they put it in the *letters* page, buried there. The very fact that you didn't *see* it (though it *is* there) helps make my point that they were dragging their feet, not wanting to draw attention to a major fiasco on their watch.

It *is* in there.

And I agree, no more Darwin, that was Skeptic's evomasturbatory release for the week. Let him take it to originsfroth.blaghblagh or something. I only responded because he was trying to paint me into something I'm not.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

Oh no ToM. Sorry but, while I pity you, I cannot just let you get away with rampant dishonesty, hypocrisy, falsehoods and the like.

Case in point: In my last post, I suggested to you that if you absolutely had to have the "evolution debate" with me, that we go to another forum(I asked if Belief.net might be a good neutral ground for this?)because I did not think such was appropriate in THIS thread.
Laughably, you post an eye-strainingly lengthy creationist rant here and then accuse ME of trying to steer the debate away from Batman and such! You really should have used the edit button to fix that before anyone noticed but oh well. Can't wish intellect on anyone :shrug:.

Furthermore, while it may be nice and convenient for YOU to spout off such rants and then try to run away from your miseducated nonsense via the "Yes, this is off-topic so let's drop it" bit, I am duty-bound to expose every bit of stupidity you espouse.

Still, one advantage they have is that these characters haven't been brought to the big screen before (The Incredibles notwithstanding). That said, they have no theatrical *history* to hold them back.

Red Dragon was made a few years ago by Brent Rattner, despite this movie being made once before by Michael Mann(Titled "Manhunter"). It played to critical and commercial success because it targeted the relatively minor niche of Thomas Harrison fans who felt that Mann's film deviated too much from the source. The "history" did not get in the way for the producers of Red Dragon.

(*Incidently, I think Mann's film was a better movie despite it's deviation from the books.)

Part of the reason for this is that Manhunter was made in the late 1980s and was not a huge success even then. Time enough had passed that anyone who might have been displaced by the film history, could appreciate the Red Dragon for what it was.

Batman Begins, Like Red Dragon, is being made for the fans of the comic books who largely felt robbed by the last four Batman movies. The comic books that were successful enough to warrant the 1989 movie were dramatic and more down to earth. Not "fun". There were no "Bat-Shark Repellent" or inexplicably senseless costumes(for the most part) in Miller's/O'Neil's/Moore's/Barr's Batman books.

Batman is NOT the Fantastic Four and should not be held to the same "fun standard" you are so fond of. They tried that with 1989's Burton film and it was terrible! 'Batman + Fun = Camp' is the equation comic fans noted.

We have had our fill of camp.

The casting isn't going to be seen as a step *down*, in the same way that casting smaller names for the Spider-Man films wasn't a disappointment.

The ONLY bit of casting I objected to in FF was Alba. Chikless was someone I had been campaigning for for years as the Thing(shame they had to blow it with the terrible costume). I would actually rather they ALWAYS went with no names when casting comic book characters(for the most part) because otherwise we end up with miscastings like Nicholson as the Joker or Keaton as Batman, which everyone will rave about(in the case of Jack) because it is the unthinking consensus that Jack is perfect for Joker since he has an affinity for and history of playing crazies. Nevermind that the Joker of the comics is a rail thin, failure of a stand up comedian who was forced to do 'one job' for the mob that proved disastrous for him. We'll just redefine the Joker to fit Jack!
Nevermind that the Batman of the comic books is *BIG* like a bodybuidlder(In Year One or Dark Knight, one of the two, there is a scene where a policeman asks if they should go after him and the detective responds "No. He's too big!") and intimidating. We will stuff Michael keaton's no-chin scrawny physique into a cool costume(thankfully!) and allow him to rewrite bits of the script to suit his own preconceptions about the Batman!
Basically, not a person involved with the previous four Bat-films had ever so much as read a Batman book and most(including Burton , Nicholson and Keaton) confessed to having no interest in the character.

As far as I can tell, you WHOLE objection to Begins is ground in your presuppositions about superheroes(that they should be "fun" and never "dark" or "dramatic").


"Dark" does NOT = "Good film"(look at The Crow which was complete bollocks aside from Proyas' direction and the general cinematography) but it is a good starting point for Batman and one we have not yet seen.


The hilarious thing here isn't that we should expect the Fantastic Four film to be "high art", but that there are people out there who honestly assume Batman Begins *will* be such.


Not "assume" and not "high art". We HOPE it is a film at least comparable to the comic-book source material in quality of storytelling.


Batman Begins is every bit the Copy And Paste Picture Show, and I suspect a bit more than just that.

You keep repeating this bald assertion and I keep asking you to substantiate it. What you MEAN to say is that YOU feel, based on YOUR preconceptions, that this is old hat or "me too!" theatre. SO far you have not even given us a real rationalization for how YOU arrive at this conclusion much less a reason why WE should agree with you! You spout off about the cost of the picture, the fact that Batman is not wearing gaudy spandex, that he is going back to his comic book roots rather than doing *something else*(???).But that is all you give us!

Besides, the whole point to advertising is to sell the product to people who *might* not go see it. If there's an audience that's going to go no matter what, you only need to tell them the picture will be there for them.


Whatever built in audience that exists for "begins" would not be there if it featured a lesser cast(or previous cast-members from the four schlock-fests), with a lesser script(ala the Fantastic Four travesty), and a lesser director(ala Burton/Schumacher).
Right now Batman Begins is on critics "must see this summer!" lists across the board(for those treated to an early screening of the avaiable material). That is a good thing! Will it force the whole audience of 2 Fast 2 Furious into the theatres? Probably not(thankfully!) and I don't care. I want a good Batman movie for once. One that has not been done before. We want OUR Batman(not Burton's or ToM's or Adam West's).

If Batman Begins wants to find tickets in hands, it'd better start looking like a good time at the movies.

And it DOES!! All indications thus far are that this will be a VERY good time!

It just isn't enough to show rubber Batman standing there, because *he* is no longer associated with "good" movies.

This isn't "rubber Batman". It is Christian bale wearing a cool-looking costume in character with the comic-book Batman(reflecting that personality, not visually mirroring it). D.C. would have changed the comic book costume long ago to match the all black motiff if not for the boycott threats of nostalgia-junkies.

Only an imbecille reasons that "Hey! Those four Batman movies sucked and Michael Keaton wore a similar costume. This movie must suck too!" That is akin to "Superman IV was terrible and Chris Reeve wore that costume with the "S" on the chest. The new Superman wears the exact same costume!! This movie will BLOW!!".

Listen, we get it already. YOU don't like the costume. That is YOUR opinion and you are entitled to it. KNOCK OFF THE STATING YOUR OPINION AS IF IT WERE OBJECTIVE FACT!!

He's associated with craptaculars and, good Lord, ON STAR GPS systems! Come on, WB put Batman out on the streets of Gothan to turn tricks in that rubber get-up. Batman= product placements,= craptacular movies. The last *well received* Batman was more than a decade ago.

So now you are arguing that if a character has been featured in advertisement, it is incapable of being the subject of a good film?!? Were'nt YOU the one going on about how much money and interest this film needs to generate to be successful?

So, with Batman having to live up to being a good movie, and other films to live *down* at the same time, something Fantastic Four isn't burdened with, expectations are different. The other thing Fantastic Four is doing is taking the kinds of super-antics the general audience *loved* in X2, and taking them the next step up. They're *building* on what came before while they're also imitating that material.

What the Hell point are you trying to make here?!? X-2 and FF are two entirely different beasts. X-Men has always been a more politically and socially conscious book(and now series of movies) with more "drama" and being "darker" than the "Super-fun team book" of FF.
Are you advocating for special effects or what?!?

Meanwhile, I don't think there's anybody who can say that Batman Begins is *building* on the past two Spider-Man films, or, for that matter, anything else that's been out.


?!?!?

Why should it?!?!? You make no sense! One one hand you claim to be some crusader against "copy/paste" and on the other you think Batman should steer away from uniqueness and build on what has come before?!?


It isn't going one up, it's just going on screens this summer. That doesn't mean it'll be a bad film, but that's not enough these days to hit three hundred million.

Your predictions about the film's commerical success are duly noted...and irrelevant.

Now, as for the burden of history, Batman Begins drops from bad guy big names like Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones in a picture to...some no name in a scarecrow mask along with Liam Neeson.


Okay we are back to the "I think Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones are *HUGE* stars compared to Liam Neeson, Ken Wantabne, Morgan Freeman, Christian bale, Gary Oldham and Michael Caine. Therefore Batman Begins will suck!". WHat does this have to do with whatever point you are making about the "burden of History"?. This line of reasoning says that Vin Diesel should have been cast as Superman for the new film to avoid the drop off in star power from Chris Reeve to Brandon Rouche(or whatever his name is).

They go from Michelle Phieffer and Uma Thurman, even Drew Barrymore, to Katie Holmes.


What Bat-film was Barrymore in? I think I remember Alicia Silverstone playing Batgirl in the last horror but I don't recall Barrymore. Funny that you single out Michelle Pfiefer and Uma Thurman, two co-stars who shared top billing with Keaton and Clooney to Katie Holmes who is playing....who?
Why not compare Pfeifer and Thurman to Neesom and Freeman?


Fantastic Four has lower case names, but it doesn't have a *history* to live up to with the cast.

So what?!?The stars of "Dude, Where's My Car?" did not have a history to live up to! Did that make this film good?!? What is your point?!?

To compensate, Batman *must* hit the audience with fun stuff.


*Sigh* Okay, debate 101 here...define "Fun Stuff". Next explain how you arrive at this conclusion from whatever premises you are operating from.

Trust me, general audiences don't go to superhero movies because they want to see a serious drama.

Who cares what you think(rightly or wrongly) general audiences want to see in a C2F?!? General audieces want to see absolute CRAP!! and the SAME CRAP over and over!! Does this mean that movie-makers should never make an In The Bedroom or Million Dollar Baby because general audiences want to see xXx or Independence Day?


If they want that, they'll go see Oldboy, or whatever *real* drama is out on screens this year. Drama has a place in this subgenre, but the "cool" factor, the "fun" factor must be there in a big way.

I just do not get you. First you make a false dichotomy that there can only be "real drama"(with no comic book characters in sight) or "Fun". Then you seem to concede that there is room for drama that is set within a fantasy/sci-fi setting and then you turn around once again and state that your ambiguous "cool factor" must trump such drama?!?

Even if any portion of that nonsense were true on *some* level, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the film you have not seen is devoid of "cool"?

Oh yeah! You don't like the costume. I remember now...*sigh*

These Batman Begins teasers do-not give anything we haven't gotten from Batman before.


I can name three dozen things the teaser's give us that we have not seen before off the top of my head but somehow I doubt it will do any good. In any case, I think maybe you are expecting too much from a "teaser"(note the term "teaser", as in "Not the complete film" and "meant to tantalize"(which it does!))

We see him swinging,


The gaul of them showing Batman swinging!

walking around,


The NERVE of them depicting Batman as some bipedal humanoid!!

turning and looking to the camera,


Everyone KNOWS Batman does not look to cameras!!!

the Batmobile rushing out of the Batcave.


That CUTS IT!!! You are absolutely RIGHT!!! I was on board with this thing until these guys slapped me in the face with this nonsense of parking the Batmobile in the Batcave and then leaving by some sort of "exit"!! The COWARDS!!!

/sarcasm

I mean, so what? We see him ice skating. Please.

I have not seen him ice skating. Please use the ***SPOILER*** tags when spoiling. Thank you.

Look, Star Wars is out, War of The Worlds is out, Fantastic Four is out, many * other* "fantastical" features are out.


You are correct, of course. FF should not be released because after all, Star Wars is out, War of the Worlds is out and Batman Begins is out.

In the good old days of Batman movies,


Um...when was THAT?

*this* particular niche wasn't so filled up. This time out, there's virtually no room left.


All the more reason to release a DIFFERENT kind of Batman than movie-goers have been subjected too. A comic-book inspired Batman! The novelty!!

Without the star power to draw audiences in, it *must* use the *fun* factor, the "gee golly" factor.


In addition to defining your terms you introduce, please explain why a)Begins lacks "Star Power" and b)Why, if it did lack such, it must rely on your "fun factor" to make up for it.
What happened to movies "making up" for lack of star power with solid scripting, direction and performances?


And this aside from the "WTF???"-ness of the idea that 'Begins' lacks "star power"! LOL!

And it's important that they do, because these other films are *thriving* on that element. Batman Begins must feature this detail just as well if it hopes to compete.

So now you are demanding that Begins be a copy/paste effort?!?

Now, as for casting, I don't consider Alba miscast at all. She's not an actress with the greatest of depth, but neither is the character she's playing.


I could care less if she studied acting with Dame Judy Dench in a Tibetan Monestary for 40 years! Casting her as "invisible Girl" is like casting Wilford Brimley as The Green Hornet!

Sue starts out in the comics as being twenty six, she fits the bill in terms of age.


Who cares. "Comics are not literature", remember?

They also needed an actress who knows who to find her mark in an action sequence, operate in a harness and all the related bits so as to have an easier dialog with trainers.


Did they turn Invisible Girl into a high-flying martial artist in the comics? Last time I read any, all she did in a melee was project force fields and turn invisible.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Also, I'm not grading the film based on what the summer audience has by way of taste. I'm saying that if you want a successful film, there are certain things you need to do to make sure that it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You are saying they should make crap because the average movie-goer cannot wrap his head around anything but crap?

You can take chances, but you *must* convince people they'll get what they want from the thing. Batman already is handicapped convincing people of this given the past films. And in order to reach three hundred million and *be* a domestic success, it'll have to be a *great* movie, not an okay, or even solid film.


Okay, let's assume that, for whatever reason, you are right and this film *MUST* be a great film. What WE are asking YOU is WHY do you conclude that this film will be "NOT-great"(in fact you seem to be consistently saying it will suck)?

I'm not getting a "daring new vision" sense from this thing. It seems like copy and paste with a dose of pretentiousness.


Chalk that up to your own deficiencies then.

Skeptic, you're far from being any real skeptic.


AGAIN with the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy!

Two Scotish gentlemen are sitting at a bar. One orders an American beer. The other turns to him and says:

"No true Scotsman would drink that crap!"

"My father drank this all his life!?" the first responds.

"AHHH... but no TRUE Scotsman would drink it!"

Do you understand why this is a fallacy? What brand of beer one drinks is not a qualifier for one's genetic or cultural heritage.

Likewise, that I do not follow YOUR dogma and conspiracy theories does not place me in the 'false skeptic' category. Your assertion is particularly humorous since you seem to have no idea what "skepticism" is!! Go to www.skeptic.com (http://www.skeptic.com) or www.randi.org (http://www.randi.org) for a primer. You might also want to check out magazines like Skeptical Inquirer and Scientific American(Michael Shermer writes a regular column for that mag and he is the founder of the Skeptics' Society).

The skeptics pretty unanimously deny and refute your claims in this thread.

You're gullible to your own preconceived notions. You look at criticisms of "camps" existing in academia in black and white terms, just as any dogmatic does.


Again...I don't mind the name calling so much. It's what we come to expect from you and I am able to respond in spades if I so choose. But the bald assertion fallacy...that will cost you points! In order for ANY assertion you make to be valid, you must qualify it with supporting evidence/substantiation. You must DEMONSTRATE how I am "guilible" and "dogmatic" by successfully challenging my reasoning and argumentation.


And you know, this is the hallmark of the sub educated.


More name calling. I would not even bother to identify this but for your own whining that I am guilty of such!


See, the sub educated individual hasn't the faintest understanding of how a field like "evolutionary theory" exists in deeply stratified forms.


Fine. I assume you are about to demonstrate this and qualify your assertions...?

I see that you're not going to leave this one alone till I give you something, so here it is (and that's the end of it because it's obvious to all that you're simply trying to hijack this thread to suit your own peculiar interests and "needs")


...or not?!?

Once again, I asked you in my previous reply to take this debate to another, more appropriate forum. I even suggested one that, if anything, would be biased towards YOUR assertions. I specifically stated that this subject was not relevant here and did not wish to turn this thread into a "Creationism vs. Evolution" debate.


And then you, in typical ToM fashion ignore all of this and give us the following Creationist rant:

Look, as for my position on Darwin, any educated person *knows* full well that positions related to him are being re thought all the time,


This fallacy is another no-no in debates. It is called the ad populi( GoHERE (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies)to learn more ). Stating that "any educated person knows [ that my position is the correct one ]!" does not make your position valid. What is particularly amusing about this instance of said fallacy is that by and large, ALL persons trained and educated in the relevant fields disagree with you! I would not cite this in support of my own arguments but I DO mention this here because it refutes your silliness flat out!

Furthermore, your statement above is ambiguous. If you meant that the theories of evolution are, like ALL scientific theories subject to revision and addition with the influx of new data, then you would be correct but this would not support your claims of Darwin being a plagiarist or anything else you ahve claimed here.

For example, Stephen J. Gould gave us the theory of evolution by Punctuated Equilibrium to COMPLIMENT Darwin's Natural Selection(not replace it or challenge it).

and some of his "people" (meaning his dogmatic devotees,


Little advice. Your case will always appear more credible or worthy of consideration when you avoid hyperbole.

and some of his "people" (meaning his dogmatic devotees, not everyone in the scientific establishment) are just like dogs with bones.


Again, you must QUALIFY this assertion. For example : Shouting "All Hindus are liars!" at a message board only accomplishes the offending of Hindus and does NOT demonstrate deceit on their part. You would have to SHOW US how/why the people you refer to as "Darwin's devotees" are such.

And no, people who accept Darwin's theories as valid do NOT represent the whole scientific community. But they DO represent nearly EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST trained in fields relevant to the subject matter including biologists, geologists, and paleontologists!(According to an NAS study done, less than 0.5 % of ALL scientists of the NAS would identify as either creationists or non-evolutionists. This number drops drastically when identifying ONLY those working in fields related to the study of evolution or biology) What some computer technition or engineer might think is irrelevant regardless of whether he agrees or disagrees.


They're the ones who slow up the advance of scientific knowledge, not religious individuals, naysayers, who are *not* operating within the field.

More bald assertions. You REALLY should visit the links I gave you.

Just as an example Ian Tattersal, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York went and did something rather novel. He went and examined *firsthand* all of the "human ancestors" collected around the world since such research started. And when he was done, he told Rick Potts, head pf paleontology at the Smithsonian, "Rick, we've got it all wrong." Now, he wasn't saying the theory in *general* was all wrong, just the so called "tree of man." There is currently (according to Tattersal) *no* discernible path of descent. Most of these creatures *thought* to be in a direct line, are nothing of the kind, simply extinct animals of a similar pedigree.

*Chuckle* Didn't I WARN you that going toe-to-toe with me on this issue would prove disastrous for your credibility?
The Tattersall quote-mining is one of MANY Creationist web site ruses.

Here is what Tattersall ACTUALLY said and the context in which he said it:

(*First we will start with the portion that Creationists often quote out of context, then follow up with the portion they leave OUT!)

"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ...That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ...prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ...One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. ...The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46)


Note that he and Eldredge are discussing Gradualism in the above and continue with the following portion that creationists do not want you to see:

<I>"The main impetus for expanding the view that species are discrete at any one point in time, to embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil record. Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. Instead, collections of nearly identical specimens, separated in some cases by 5 million years, suggested that the overwhelming majority of animal and plant species were tremendously conservative throughout their histories.

That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, troubled by the stubbornness of the fossil record in refusing to yield abundant examples of gradual change, devoted two chapters to the fossil record. To preserve his argument he was forced to assert that the fossil record was too incomplete, to full of gaps, to produce the expected patterns of change. He prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search and then his major thesis - that evolutionary change is gradual and progressive - would be vindicated. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.

The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way. Rather than challenge well-entrenched evolutionary theory, paleontologists tacitly agreed with their zoological colleagues that the fossil record was too poor to do much beyond supporting, in a general sort of way, the basic thesis that life had evolved."</I>

And TRUTH shall light the way! Again, Eldredge and Tattersall were contending that GRADUALISM(not natural selection in general) could not account for certain observances about the fossil record! They had no beef with Darwin. NO scientific theories go without revision or modification.
HERE (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote44) you can read in more detail about the Tattersall mis-quotes.


Now, if "the Darwin camp" (as in one of *many* "camps" in competition) hadn't been so inflexible, hadn't been so uncritical as to let these things go without examining them all firsthand, we'd have advanced to a better understanding by *now.* But it was the slavishly *acceptance* of the "party line" that allowed this misunderstanding to go on so long.


So how does that crow taste? MMmmm...crow. http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/biggrin.gif

Was it the creationists who fouled this up for science? Of course not. It was the dogmatic element sleeping in the Darwin bunks.

Any wagers on how long it takes Mr. Wizard here to fess up to his lack of education?

It's all well and good for people like you to rattle off the names of legitimate scientific disciplines with which Darwn has been associated.


I listed fields of scientific study that would be relevant to the debate. This was a pre-emptive strike against the "Hundreds of scientists are abandoning Darinism/evolution!" mantra of creationists like yourself(*Note: you don't have to be "Young Earth" to be a creationist).

But that doesn't mean people in the field of evolutionary studies aren't holding science back with their dogma.


WHO are you talking about specifically and WHAT "dogma"?


And Skeptic, your acceptance, or "allegiance" with this concept doesn't make you "enlightened."


1)I owe "allegiance" to no one. I abhor dogma and contend such regardless of where it rears it's head.

2)No one here was arguing any such nonsense as "allegiance = enlightenment".

3)If you are going to repeatedly claim that some element of science is guilty of dogmatism or that evolution is not fact(for whatever reason) then you MUST demonstrate this via argument. Not repeated bald assertions!

So far I have typed in your words in Google and found thousands of pages worth of hits that link to creo web-sites! No WONDER you refuse to include references!

All it does is make you *willingly* ignorant, just as it does so many who operate in that field, in the same way that some religious people shout down discoveries with some mantra.

Okay, we get that you indentify some religious folks as being dogmatic. It does not much matter who you are talking about here. But if you are going to claim that these mystereious "Dogmatic evolutionists" exist and are a simulacrum of these religious dogmatics then you are going to have to make a case! It might help to start with a premise or two then demonstrate how you logically arrive at your conclusions.

Some evidence to support your claims would be most appreciated as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As for National Geographic! If you're a "skeptic" I'd think have some appreciation for the laughing stock they've made themselves on a number of occasions.

The March 2000 issue of National Geographic was the issue that was to feature the magazine's retraction of all their bold proclamations about the theropod (dinosaur) to bird theory as they relate to a series of Chinese fossils. They'd had a cover story on what they claimed as a fossil that *proved* dinosaurs came from birds. It turned out to be a fake. This Well, there are several very curious details about this retraction.

The first detail that seems obviously suspicious has to do with timing. Bill Allen, editor of National Geographic told the Associated Press that had he known prior to publication that there was anything suspicious about the series of fossils he would have yanked the article. Yet, a representative of the Smithsonian communicated with Geographic several times before publication about the problems with the fossils (they were fake). This was in November. So as early as November they already knew a problem existed.

Next, Geographic got word from China that the fossils were unauthentic. This information had arrived before December 20th as on that date Geographic made alterations to a public display that featured the fossils. This alteration went so far as to say that "questions have been raised as to the fossils' origins." This of course isn't strong enough language to allow those reading it to understand the false nature of the fossils. Maybe that was the point?

So Geographic knew the fossils were suspicious in November and as early as December 20th they knew they were fake. This might have been too late to include a message from the editor in that month's issue alerting readers to their irresponsible reporting. But surely there was enough time to include some mention of it in the January installment. And to be sure there would be ample time to correct such a terrible mistake by the time of the February issue.

When does the retraction turn up? It's in the March issue. Why correct the problem so late? I could see them wanting to spend some time putting together a thoughtful editorial on this. But as the mention of it in the March issue is so brief and so uninvolved? There's no reason for it not to have been included earlier.

As things present themselves it looks as though Geographic wanted some damage control on the situation. Like if they put enough distance between their bold reporting and the clarification of the nature of the fossils it would impact their readers less. It could suggest that they're hoping the readers won't notice the mistake.

And that brings me to the next suspicious detail. When Geographic finally stops dragging their feet about admitting they pawned off fakes onto the public...where in the magazine do they disclose this information? It's not in an editorial. It's not in a supplement either. They place the information in, of all places, the letters forum!

Now, the whole point to their article on these Chinese fossils was to state in no meek wording that the issue of the origins of birds had been conclusively decided. This is huge story. And anything relating to it would at least be worthy of being mentioned first in the reader's forum. Yet, what is the first detail dicussed? Photographs of The Inca Empire and East Africa (introduced by Allen). So, the correction of what was one of their biggest stories ever doesn't even get top notice in the section they place it in.

Bill Allen's notification to his readership of publishing a huge misrepresentation of science in his magazine is placed in the middle of several pages worth of reader's mail. Boy, did they bury this thing or what? It obviously seems that they placed this somewhere that would allow for it to be easily overlooked. It's not as though they drew an arrow to the correction.

The correction by Allen is placed in response to a letter from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. The author of the letter, Xu Xing mentions that he discovered the nature of the fossils being unauthentic by comparing them with specimens in a private collection.

But it is what he says of one of the creatures represented in Geographic's article that is staggering. He says, "I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, (to those he compared them with in another collection) but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body."

In Bill Allen's response to this letter (that he had before December 20th) he states that researchers in the US have confirmed what Xu Xing reported. This they accomplished using CT scans of the Archaeoraptor specimen. Allen doesn't at any point here go so far as to directly address the specimen as a fake (as others have done). He only mentions the forgery as "anomalies in the fossils construction." Talk about sugar coating a fiasco. As it turned out, the fossils were held together using GLUE! This is an obvious forgery!

As for the future, Allen mentions that when studies are complete details of the Archaeoraptor specimen and the technologies that revealed "anomalies in the fossils construction" will be published. Here's what I find amusing about this, he's still calling the forgery Archaeoraptor. Obviously, that's not what it is! The specimen isn't a specimen of anything at all! It's a composite of fossils that have no relationship to each other!

Maybe he's hoping that if they don't call it anything else, if they keep that name on it...in the future we'll forget this ever happened and take it for what they reported it as. Some people just never learn from the past that they spend so much time in the study of. Well, in time the findings were published and the facts about the glue were revealed. But I still laugh about how Geographic said that if they had *any* doubt* they'd *not* have put up their display, published what they did, and so on. But months in advance the curator of birds at Smithsonian *warned* them about problems!

What a joke.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, since you failed once again to provide references to back up these claims, I was forced to see if I could track down the relevant information myself. Thus far, I have found no mention anywhere of National Geographic hoaxery but this appears to be the latest reincarnation of the Hoyle and associates claims that Archaeopteryx was a fake, which are soundly refuted HERE (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html).

I will keep looking for the alleged National Geographic stuff and edit when I find something(or were you just expecting a skeptic to take you at your word? *Chuckle).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Oh, here's another silly one for you. On April 21 of 2000 Science published that a fossil mass within the chest cavity of an ornithischian dinosaur was a fossil heart with four chambers. Paul Fisher and Dale Russell of North Carolina State University led the study and claimed that this was evidence for these creatures having warm blood (and this aids the dino-to- bird theory).

They based their conclusions on computer tomography scans of the fossil mass. Their paper talked up the differences between warm blooded and cold blooded animals and reptiles. Critics claimed that Science sent the paper by Paul Fisher and Dale Russell *only* to those known to favor the theropod to bird theory for reveiw. Sure enough as you'd expect, whoever the scientists who reveiwed it were, they agreed with the findings. I say "whoever" they were because at a meeting over comparative physiology...nobody would confess to having reviewed the paper. Strange.

Another strange detail was that the fossil was taken from the Hell's Creek formation in South Dakota. And this formation doesn't contain the types of sediment in which soft tissues like flesh can be fossilized! Since its impossible to have a heart form into a fossil in that formation, the "heart" must only be a lump of mud that's since been fossilized. So, a fake heart was the subject of a paper that was sent only to those who would favor the idea and go along with it. And later on, when caught red handed, nobody wants to confess.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Okay, you once again refused to give us links and references so I had to do the work for you. I started by trying a variety of Google searches for Paul Fisher and Dale Russell, along with the various tidbits you allege above.

No dice.

Then, on a hunch I went to Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/150essay.shl) Mag's web site to check their archives and guess what?

No such article.

What SHOULD have tipped you off that this was BS is the fact that it is nigh impossible for fleshy organs of any sort to fossilize, no matter the sediment and paleontologists KNOW this adn would not make such ridiculous claims(especially not in a prestigious mag like Science!) adn such an article would not get by peer review. You attempt to dodge this by offering a conspiracy theory that the review board would conspirre to push the paper through even though it would ruin their careers and reputation!? To call that thoughtless nonsense would be to give it too much credit.
You would just as soon see George Bush stating he would like to "Kill a few minorities" in his state of the union address.

So, my question is, *who* are the people damanging science and the reputation of Darwin?


And your answer is: Creationists. There are only TWO kinds of creationist/evolution denier:

The uneducated and the miseducated.


The truth reveals itself in a lab. If you must jiggle the table, then you're looking at it the wrong way. Only *objectivity* in the lab can produce the knowledge we require. I won't even get into "directed panspermia" but I find the whole "space monsters" theory side splitting. But let's bash Louis Leakey, and rightfully instead.


You won't get far bashing Leakey when, after all it was adn is the EVOLUTIONISTS you so despise who exposed his errors!

See HERE (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/leakeydiag.html) for one example. In fact there is a whole lot at Talkorgins.org about debunking Leakey!

Leakey digs up a skull near the Omo River in Ethiopia back in '67. They date the skull, and get an age that doesn't track with the "accepted" theory as it then stood. Rather than consider the standing theory tentative, as he should, they write it off.


Woah...waitaminute here. Who is "they"? Are you talking about Leakey's people or evolutionary biologists? It seems you are on the same side as your declared enemies on this issue. It was not evolution deniers who exposed the Piltdown man and such, it was evolution scientists.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

This was a *major* find, think of how an entire generation of knowledge was held back because Leakey didn't want to challenge the existing Darwinian thinking because of *bias*,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL!! This had absolutely NOTHING to do with Darwin! You nare getting your info from Creationist web sites man! Leakey was not a "Darwinist" or out to prove some inflexible "dogma of Darwinism"!! He was trying to prove HIS OWN hypotheses and failed miserably when the so-called "Darwinists" exposed his errors!!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Your attitude here is entirely unacceptable, because it infers that if we're inpatient with *researchers* for their folly, we're not better than the ten thousand year old earth crowd denying "facts."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Your challegnes thus far have been every BIT as (in)valid as the Y.E.C. claims! If you call Leakey a "Researcher" adn have a beef with HIS "folly" then you are arguing the case for "Darwinism"(whatever that is supposed to be), as it is the so-called "Darwinists" who expose these errors.

You have yet to identify any frauds of evolution that were not exposed, decades if not a century ago, by evolutionary scientists!

But *these* researchers *deny* facts even more profoundly, by *modifying* them to suit *their* views.


For example...?


The creationists *cannot* harm science.


They cannot harm the methodology that is science but they most certain HAVE done irreparable damage to the progress of science and the science education of U.S. citizens! The only reason we were able to get through the after-effects of the Scopes Trial was becuase the social climate of German adn Russia drove their most gifted scientists over here(Einstein, Asimov etc.) and America had a knack for promoting inidividualistic thinking(as evidenced by Edison).
But now we can no longer count on world wars adn socialist revolutions to drive gifted scientists to our shores even when we are opposing science education ourselves.
America won the space race(barely) but we are losing nearly every other "race" since then on the science front and this can be directly traced to the Creationist movement.
Evolution is the foundation of modern biology and is integral to many related fields. Without evolution being fact we not only have no biology but we have no reference point for claims about "biological weapons", no modern medicine(Insulin treatment for diabetics? Out Flu Vaccines? Can't work!).

Only dogmatism in place of objectivity can do that. And people like *you* allow *these* sorts of antics to go on and on.

MMmm...crow.

Because as * you* see it, the only people "critical" of the "honesty" of researchers, the only ones who approach it with skepticism (essential in keeping it all honest) are *creationists.* And that's flat out wrong.


WOAH...that goes quite BEYOND any claims to simply misunderstanding my position. You well KNOW that that is a flat out LIE! What's more there are people at these forums who are familiar with me since I have been coming here fopr YEARS adn they well KNOW that I am no creationist or advocate for creationism! Why would I be debating YOU here if I thought that Creationists were honest advocates of critical inquiry?!?

Oh sure, we can talk about peer reviewed materials.


No you can't! You don't even know the first thing about peer-review!


But that isn't going to be worth too much when "peers" with the same bias can clear each other's work and give us lumps of mud and tell us it's really a fossil heart.


I love it. The false dichotomy goes: If peer review does not go against evolution, it is because there is a conspiracy!

Please provide links for the "Fossil-heart" story and clear your good name by so doing. Right now, you are a LIAR!

Yet, you trumpet yourself "intelligent"...


Where did I do this? Please point to a SINGLE INSTANCE of me "trumpeting my own intelligence" other than my barbed replies to your childish taunts(stating that I am more intelligent than YOU is not claiming to be "intelligent". It just means that I am not plagued with a failed GED test as sole testament to my intellectual faculties)


because you drink this stuff from a big spoon, whereas only "creationists" and the uneducated approach such data with a skeptical eye.


WTF are you talking about?!? Where do you even arrive at this idea that creationists are skeptics? How can you be "uneducated" and still possess the rationality for critical inquiry that is necessary to skepticsm? You are all over the freaking MAP man!

Blindly accepting anything is hardly intellectual freedom.


Correct. What is your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> The willingly ignorant.

"May Darwin be the truth, and every man a liar!"

Man, you sound exactly like those you criticize. From where I sit, there really isn't much distinction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


More advice for you junior. When you are quoting someone word-for-word, you use the double quotes("). If you use the "'s to isolate something that was NOT said by the person you are responding to, this is false attribution. It is the same as if I claimed that YOU said "I got my ejukashun from unca billy in Arkinsaw!".

I enjoy how you refer to yourself as my "better" when you've stooped to name calling,


Everyone note this, point at ToM, and laugh! Quickly now! He won't be around much longer after this post!


idle threats of "cyber stalking me"


WHAT?!? When did ANYONE here threaten to "cyber-stalk" you?!? Why would anyone WANT to?!?

... on your "hit list, warning me to make up or be foloowed around or whatever.


WTF are you talking about?!? Why would ANYONE want to "foloow(SIC) you" around? When did ANYONE demand that you "make up"(and what do you mean by that?)???

Yeah, you're balanced.


And you are 'burlap-underwear' INSANE!

Oh, and your account of Wallace and Darwin is missing a few chapters. You know, like *why* Wallace *had* to address the issue of plagiarism with regard to Charlie.


Where did he have to do this? Are you EVER going to back up ANYTHING you claim??? ONE FREAKING LINK!! THat is ALL I ASK!! A GAWD DANGED REFERENCE!!

And you leave out that Wallace *refused* to attend Darwin's funeral.


I did not leave it out. Wallace did not "refuse" to attend anymore than "lady Hope" AGREED to attend! Urban legends man, I swear...
The ONLY beef Wallace EVER had with Darwin was over Darwin's naturalism/materialistic stnace. Wallace came to believe in all sorts of mysticism(and age did nothing to help him here) and voodoo nonsense which Darwin did not. There was NOT any claim that Darwin plagiarized Wallace until Creationists of the latter 20th century tried to forge this to create some apparent rift in evolution. The same old ad hominem garbage.

Gee, doesn't sound like he was annoyed with something the old boy did, does it? Like maybe ripped him off?


Only sounds that way to those who did not bother to EDUCATE themselves on the facts of the matter adn instead relied on Creationist web sites for their education. Try books sometime guy. Books are good.(Even the nonsense by Behe, Dembski, Gish, Strobel et al is of value if only to see how this misinformation comes about)

You know, another bit you don't mention about the issue is how good old Darwin had been reading the material of Edward Blyth whilst shipping along on The Beagle. Darwin's very copy of the magazine where he read the material *shows* that he made use of Blyth's concepts the very same year Darwin claimed to have come up with the idea, yet, in reality, wrote the same basic paper.


Okay, I am a busy man. I cannot do ALL of your work for you all day long. Please give us a link to the relevant material on Blythe and we shall examine it("we" being I adn anyone else interested in what sort of nonsense you have to offer).

I will get back to the other tidbits about National Geographic and Science as promised(but you COULD help by referencing your claims for me!) adn if I have time I will look up the "Blythe conspiracy theory" as well.

Basically, the Wallace rip-off can be excused more easily if you don't consider that Darwin seems to have had a *habit* of sampling the works of others. Blyth could take a dive because his ideas were *creationist* in nature, Wallace was given to all manner of kooky ideas, Darwin, by sitting still and not overreaching in claims, came out looking the most sober minded. But this idea that there are *no* academics who consider him a plagiarist, or *possibly* a plagiarist is just kneejerk dogmatics.


Name ONE academic working in a relevant field who considers Darwin to be a palgiarist? Just ONE is all I asked you for. ALl you gave me were quote minings, false claims, bald assertions adn mroe logical fallacies than we can shake twenty sticks at!

Even Shakespearephiles don't *deny* that some academics consider that he didn't write everything attributed to his pen. They simply discount the evidence.

Okay, back to Shakespeare(and yet I am just "trying to steer the debate in some unrelated area of interest" :rolleyes http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/smile.gif. Who are you refering to as "academics" above? What "evidence" are you referencing?

Anyway, I'm putting up a "don't feed the troll" sign now.


Make sure you put it under the porch light so you can always find your way back home without wandering into the wrong house!


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> You can go drip froth over at origins.blaghblagh now or something, since it seems like that's what gets you all lathered up. But as you seemed to be pushing towards me being some "double secret creationist" or whatever, trying to paint me into what your perceived "enemies" are ( so you could "mark me" or whatever) I had to nicely do away with that.

Now, go play in the sand box.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


*Chuckle*

'WAHHH!*CRY*sob*'

Easiest way to dsitinguish your self from Creationists...? DOn't parrot their mantras at message boards. Don't LIFT their unsubstnatiated claims from their pages when you are debating someone who is SURE to know better! And finally, include citations/references to substntiate your claims. That is a surefire way to identify you as a "non-creationist".

------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-30-2005).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-30-2005).]

[ToM]

Creationist rant? This is *not* creationist! I'm not talking about religion, promoting a God-created world concept in place of science, or tearing down "evolution" as a theory! I'm talking about not swallowing *every* bit of data that gets railroaded into even peer reviewed magazines. It's that stuff that hurts science, not some religious people ranting about Darwin who aren't in *any* field of science.

I love your bit about how "the skeptics pretty much deny and refute your (whatever) in this thread." What you really mean is that skeptics of a peculiar stripe swallow a specific party line or lines. Yep. Dogmatic, tribal, all that.

You show your true dogmatic colors by calling me "creationist." You feel the need to paint me a particular shade in order to discount anything said to you (shoot the messenger). Oh, by the way, you have this act about how "we've" come to expect name calling from (me). Who are "we", exactly? I haven't called you or anybody here a single name. But you've made use of plenty, as well as threats, and warning to "make nice" with you for fear of you "following me around" or whatnot. You say you're fast approaching middle age? Maybe you've been struck with a mid-life crisis prematurely, and right here on this board. Now you seem to think you speak for "the board."

Skeptic, you're the only one calling names or any other inappropriate antic. And I don't have to "successfully" challenge your reasoning. Your reason is falling apart all over the place on its own.

Okay, you say *all* educated persons disagree with me that Darwin is being re-examined all the time. Well, that isn't true. For example, Darwin's ideas relating to sexual selection among apes has been rethought, much of his sexual selection theories are, well, not in good standing anymore. Wait'asecond, why am I even bothering? Anybody here at university knows what I'm about to say, and anybody else won't find any value in such responses anyway.

Little advice. Wipe the froth from your lips and the sweat off your brow, keep from "warning" people that they'd better agree with you and make nice if you want to win friends, influence people, or ever have a first date, let alone a second one.

Look, I wasn't saying that Tattersal was saying that *man* didn't evolve, just that the existing *tree* , the classic demonstration of descent was no longer a valid model. That *this* was all wrong, not the *concept. And *he* is *not* a creationist, nor is the observation suited to proving the planet is ten thousand years old, or that Adam was the first human being, or whatever. It's just that *had* someone before him gone and examined these finds firsthand, as he did, rather than accepting them at "face" value, we'd be farther along on the road.

Also, *Darwin* didn't "invent" the "tree of man" scale that we've used for generations now. So of course I wasn't saying Tattersal was attacking Darwin! Tattersal was correcting a model that should have been corrected ages ago.

Lack of education? If someobody can convince a peer reviewed magazine like Science that a lump of mud is a fossil heart, or National Geographic that some bird bones stuck together with *glue* are an astonishing fossil find, they might as well have *janitors* running academia.

References? Tattersal said these things in "Fossil Discovery Shakes Human Family Tree" USA TOday Thursday July 11, 2002 page 5D. The National Geographic fiasco is cited in the March issue of that magazine, in the letters page, as well as in national newspapers, should be easy enough to discover. (And of course creationists are going to be all over this stuff, what do you expect?)

National Geographic is makes a fool of itself, and here an article that you should have *known* about before. "Dino-bird Link Smashed In Fossil Flap"- USA Today, Tuesday Jan 25, 2000 (Life Section) by Tim Friend

Here you go and play expert, and you didn't even know about one of the most infamous acts of Barnumism of the past ten years. You really do just swallow all this stuff on down, don't you? I mean, you don't even question anything you read, huh? Actually, I question how much *you* read, and about this pet subject of yours if you didn't know about this.

You also didn't know about the fake fossil heart? You sayyou couldn't even find that such an article was published? I just did a passing search and found all manner of references to it. You're not very skilled at research Skeptic.

Here's one right now listing the April 21st issue of the journal of SCience and the heart:
http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000426.html

The article goes on to say, "a team of scientists from North Carolina State University reported in the April 21 issue of the journal Science. The heart, the first ever found from a dinosaur, has four chambers and a single artery, a combination that delivers oxygen-rich blood from the lungs to the rest of the body, like mammalian hearts do."

As I already mentioned this heart turned out to be, well, all mud. Just like the names of anyone who would've admitted to giving it a passing grade. Hey, and yours too as things emerge!

By the way, all that content about the peers from the reveiw board refusing to identify themselves? That was reported in the pages of the USA Today. Try reading, "Debate Over Dino 'Heart' Gets Blood Pumping by Tim Freind page 8 D October 3, 2000.

James Hicks said, " Some of the talk at the last comparative physiology meeting was focused on who reviewed this paper, because any physiologist I know would have corrected it...No one at the meeting would fess up to reviewing it."

Oh, as for Leakey? You can look that up once again in the hard to find listed USA Today for Feb 17, 2005, "Rethinking Our Ancient Roots-Dan Veragano. Oh, let me guess, USA Today is just some creationist rag, right? Oh, and I love how you seem to think I'm now calling *you* a creationist. Man, you see them behind every tree, don't you?

Here you puff yourself all up, say none of these things are listed, and yet, here they all are. You're eating a lot worse than crow. But you were all ready full of it anyway.

I could go on with the rest of this stuff, but what's the point? If you didn't know about any of this, then you're not the expert you've pretended to be in the first place. And I'm not going to waste time enlightening you of all the unnumbered facts it seems you don't know (or just want to deny) But I think by this point it's clear that this Batman subject has been run into the ground worse than the franchise was by the time of Batman And Robin.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT BY 'NOT APPROPRIATE HERE', ToM? That means that we can go HERE (http://http:www.belief.net/boards/index.asp) or HERE (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?) or HERE (http://www.onlinedebate.net/), for a few examples. Debates over evolution, creationism, Darwin et al are encouraged at these sites.

They are NOT APPROPRIATE HERE!


If you are interested in learning more about modern skepticism adn the skeptics' positions on issues of evolution/natural selection/Darwin/"Intelligent Design" or any other isssue you can go to The Skeptics Society Homepage (http://www.skeptic.com/) or This site about medical quackery (http://www.quackwatch.org/) or This site (http://www.badastronomy.com/) that debunks astronomical tomfoolery such as the "Moon landing was faked" conspiracy theory or This site (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm) which debunks nearly every JFK conspiracy theory angle ever spewed out of uneducated mouths!
All of those give insight into skeptical reasoning adn may help to clear up your misconeptions about what modern skepticsim is.

To learn more about the myths, the lies, the truths and the urban legends surrounding Darwin and Wallace, you can go to either the Skeptics Society Homepage(linked above) OR The TalkOrgins site (http://talkorigins.org/) for a TON of well researched and well referenced material(so you cannot just write off the site as some "biased" or "dogmatic" pro-Darwin site, which is a chicken-shit tactic anyway).






You show your true dogmatic colors by calling me "creationist."


You are using creationist arguments almost word-for-word copy/pasted from Creationist web sites! Whether you realize it or not, that makes you an advocate for a creationist agenda(in the context of this debate).

You feel the need to paint me a particular shade in order to discount anything said to you (shoot the messenger).


No, I answered your arguments point for point(in as much as I could since you were scarce on providing ANY FREAKING LINKS to your alleged evidence/substnatiation!)

Oh, by the way, you have this act about how "we've" come to expect name calling from (me). Who are "we", exactly?


"We". The people here who have been laughing at your 'head-planted-firmly-in-arse'antics here. Shall we poll the people and see how many agree with you that you are the "educated person" in this slugfest?

I haven't called you or anybody here a single name.


OMFG!! That would almost be humorous if not for the fact that in my last reply I pointed out in quote after quote every instance of your name-calling and further pointed out the irony that you complained of MY name calling! If you would care to address these specific charges and explain how what you did was somehow NOT name-calling then I am all ears!

Oh but wait...you can't do that. Because YOU can't even manage to figure out the 'quote' function of UBB code!!

But you've made use of plenty,


I have retorted nicely, yes.


as well as threats,


Woah...WHAT threats?!? Does anyone hear(who can use the quote function) remember any threats I made and can tell us what I specifically threatened to do to ToM here?

and warning to "make nice" with you


Again, you are attributing this "make nice" quote to me and I never said any such thing. I did not warn you to "make nice"(???) and I did not threaten you if you refused to "make nice"(what does "make nice" mean specifically anyway?).

for fear of you "following me around" or whatnot.


Can we get a freaking Moderator in here?!? It is one thing to steer the Batman forums towards his Darwin conspiracy theory rants when we have clearly suggested to him that other forums would be more appropriate but he has repeatedly attributed quotes and threats to me which I never made! That is BULLSH!T!

You say you're fast approaching middle age? Maybe you've been struck with a mid-life crisis prematurely, and right here on this board.


*Slaps knee*
*Giggle*snort*dorky laugh*

What a funny!

[/sarcasm]


Leave the comedy to the funny people junior. You are stinking up the joint.

Now you seem to think you speak for "the board."

So far no one is rushing to defend YOUR nonsense. Xenos is a great diplomat to be sure in that he has the patience to NOT come right out and tell you that you are full of s#it and need to go somewhere else.
The rest of us have left the diplomacy to him and are telling you like it is.

Skeptic, you're the only one calling names or any other inappropriate antic.

Examples of general a$$hole-ness from ToM:

Okay, you seem to have misunderstood that scene because you weren't paying attention.

If you had said "You seemed to have misunderstood that scene." and left it at that, you would be fine. But you HAD to add in your speculations about my attentiveness in an insulting manner. You have been doing this from your first replies in this thread!

Some more:

Oh, I see you debate creationists. You know, *true* skeptics take amusement at how creationists and the disciples of Darwin (the great plagiarist of Wallace) debate "reality." To us, we're simply seeing the mutual fanging of dueling dogmatics. They're religion trying to be science, Darwin's sons are science trying to be religion, with the facts altered to fit the views rather than the views altered to suit the *facts* nearly as much as the ten thousand years old club.

Ignorance of what skepticsm is, as opposed to what YOU apparently thought it was, does not excuse this. I am a card-carrying skeptic. I question EVERYTHING. It is a common anti-skeptical tactic to assume "skeptic" is some lauded title, rather than a philosophical distinction and to assert that anyone not aggreeing with the anti-skeptic is not a "true skeptic". it is that 'No true Scotsman' fallacy I tried to explain to you. It is no different than fundie Christians exclaiming that "Muslims/Jews are not TRUE believers in God." or somesuch.

Now if YOU happen to harbor some anti-skeptic convictions about Darwin or Wallace or any other related stuff, that is fine. BUT THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR YOU TO GET ON A SOAPBOX AND START SPOUTING CONSPIRACY THEORIES! I have suggested numerous alternative places for us to have this debate and you keep responding HERE with your creationist rants followed by the empty promise that it will be "the last time" you do so(and yet, here you are AGAIN!).
Furthermore, and more to the point, blanket generalizations about me and my ilk and bald assertions that only INSULT us, are NOT the way to present whatever challenges you weant to present(and also THIS IS NOT THE FORUM FOR THAT DEBATE!).

More:

I love by the way that you argue that had audiences felt the music in Hulk was too Arabic we'd have heard about it on the news by now. And what if *you* simply hadn't heard it on the news? And there are many things in Heaven and Earth that aren't found on the cable news, or the Weekly World news or National Geographic (who should have nearly as poor a reputation as the Weekly World News).

In the above, you responded to my contention that if what you had said were true(that "Lots" of people took offense to the music and desert locales in Hulk), we should have heard it from someone other than just YOU, with another off-topic rant about National Geographic and coupled it with some groundless mischaracterization of me as a tabloid -reading robot!?

And yet you have the GAUL to complain that I called you an imbecille!


And THIS:


Anyway Xenos, as for trolling, it seems our friend here is Hell-bent on *trying* to draw the conversation into other areas of his interest.


You lowered this charge at ME after YOU went off on a tangent about Darwin, followed by a rant against National Geographic and have, since the beginning of this thread taken every oppurtunity you could to try and bait someone into a political debate about the 'war on terror' and various other conspiracy theories! You have since then posted lengthy creationist rants, one after another after another(always with the unfulfilled promise to cease doing so. "Just one more and I am done!")


And this:


As for kicking me, just keep doing it. You're not drawing any bruises, and you're only making yourself out to be more ignorant moment by moment with the calling of names, the dragging the debate off from the subject, you're all over the place like a drunk in a lane change. This doesn't represent the skills of an accomplished debater, but a ranter.

What I said, that sparked this retort was that you should conduct yourself as an adult. Instead of trying to force a debate about Darwin or National Geographic or any of that, you could just say "I agree that this stuff has nothing to do with Batman." and/or bow out RESPECTFULLY. I then assured you I would not "kick you on your way out." This was obvious metaphor where "kick" meant that I would not take shots at you(like saying "Good riddance idiot!") if you did so.

But YOU, in typical ToM fashion, decided you had better keep pushing for the creationism/anti-Darwin/anti-National Geo'/anti-skepticism debate and then call ME "ignorant"(that is "name calling" ToM. Don't split hairs about syntax. You called me "an ignorant man" which is synonomous with "an imbecille" in the context you employed it. You also called me a "ranter".)

Then after all of the above charges that I was trying to steer the debate elsewhere, you offer this:

As to the "ten thousand year old earth crowd" you assumed I'd be on com on ground with you, and you're correct. Only as an educated person, I understand that the Darwin camp is often more silly than the creationists.

The first sentence is in reference to my explaining to you that I had no intention or desire to steer the deabte towards these matters. YOU brought up the silliness of the 10,000 year old earth guys and I thought "Ah! Here is common ground. If we can agree here then maybe I can make my points understood using this is a frame of reference."
But then you just HAD to offer this:

Only as an educated person, I understand that the Darwin camp is often more silly than the creationists.

There is no "Darwin camp" that you keep alluding to. That is a creationist strawman. It was created by creationists and used extensively in their bid to attack evolutionary theory by either pitting Wallace against Darwin or generally insinuating there was some monolithic order of "Darwinists" who refused to deviate from some rigid dogma. You also call me "an uneducated person" for not assenting to your groundless claim. THAT is name calling ToM.
The whole thing is also a shameless attempt to troll for a debate about Darwin and such.

And I don't have to "successfully" challenge your reasoning.


You DO if you want to play "debate" with the grown ups kiddo. We have rules of debate. No logical fallacies and this includes bald assertions. You will learn about these rules when you get into College(assuming you are still interested in debate then).

Your reason is falling apart all over the place on its own.


Case in point.

Okay, you say *all* educated persons disagree with me that Darwin is being re-examined all the time.


That is why I urge you to learn to use the quote function. That way you will not have these difficulties in understanding what I say. You can easily copy and isolate what I say and THEN challenge it.

I repeat: USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION! I went to all the trouble of explaining how easy it is for you. Simply copy then paste the portion you are responding to, Place the following [ quote ](without spaces) BEFORE the quoted text and then follow said text with [ /quote ](again, no spaces). The "/" always indicates a closing tag to a function.

I hope you never have to learn html!! LOL!! it will be impossible for you!


Well, that isn't true. For example, Darwin's ideas relating to sexual selection among apes has been rethought,


I NEVER, EVER said that Darwin's ideas were not "rethought". In fact I went to some trouble to explain to you that ALL scientific theories are subject to revision.
Darwin did not emphasize sexual selection as he was mostly advocating his 'natural selection' theory as it was(not to say that sexual selkection wasn't an aspect, just that the emphasis was not so much on this). Recently some scientists have been emphasizing the role of sexual selection in certain cases and SOME of their ideas MAY have merit but some have been shown to be outright false.

much of his sexual selection theories are, well, not in good standing anymore. Wait'asecond, why am I even bothering? Anybody here at university knows what I'm about to say, and anybody else won't find any value in such responses anyway.


What are you about to say ToM?

Little advice. Wipe the froth from your lips and the sweat off your brow, keep from "warning" people that they'd better agree with you and make nice if you want to win friends, influence people, or ever have a first date, let alone a second one.

Everyone at the uni KNEW you were about to say THAT?!?!? Impressive bunch at that uni! Shame that they did not see fit to warn you that you were about to offer up a bucket of complete LIES and nonsense! One of your "psychic friends" should have informed you that I never "warned you to make nice and agree with me or else blah, blah, blah.." That is YOUR complete fabrication and if you keep on fabricating such lies I am going to bring the mods down on you for sure. How would you feel if I were just making stuff up about you like "ToM said that NAMBLA were a crusading organization he was proud to be a member of!". Wouldn't be nice would it?

Look, I wasn't saying that Tattersal was saying that *man* didn't evolve, just that the existing *tree* , the classic demonstration of descent was no longer a valid model.


Tattersal was talking about GRADUALISM. Not "Darwinism" proper or NatSal. He was stating what nearly ALL Darwinian evolutionists since Darwin's time have been saying to varying degrees! It is the same stuff that prompted Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium theory.


That *this* was all wrong, not the *concept. And *he* is *not* a creationist, nor is the observation suited to proving the planet is ten thousand years old,


*Sigh*

Once AGAIN, creationism, per se, has nothing to do with a "10,000 year old Earth". That is a specific sub-set of creationism called "Young Earth Creationism"(Y.E.C.). There are many(most?) Creationists who deny evolution and believe the Earth to be millions(or even Billions!) of years old.


or that Adam was the first human being, or whatever.


NOT ALL creationists are CHRISTIAN! Some are Hindu or even Pagan(though these are rare) or even non-religious theists!

It's just that *had* someone before him gone and examined these finds firsthand, as he did, rather than accepting them at "face" value, we'd be farther along on the road.

What are you talking about? Are you back to your National Geographic stuff? Fine. Give us a link to the story. Simply copy/paste the web-addy where the story can be found in one of your posts.

Also, *Darwin* didn't "invent" the "tree of man" scale that we've used for generations now. So of course I wasn't saying Tattersal was attacking Darwin! Tattersal was correcting a model that should have been corrected ages ago.

Which "tree of man"(do you mean "tree of LIFE"?) scale are you talking about and what then does this have to do with Darwin?

Lack of education? If someobody can convince a peer reviewed magazine like Science that a lump of mud is a fossil heart,


I gave you a link to the Science mag web site with a complete encapsulation of the year 2000 issues and the articles within. Nowhere was this "fossil-heart" story found. I am smelling another creationist ruse that may have unfortunately suckered you in, perhaps thoguh some email dispatch.

or National Geographic that some bird bones stuck together with *glue* are an astonishing fossil find, they might as well have *janitors* running academia.

I am STILL unable to find any information about this alleged event. You would think the net would be BRIMMING with pages covering such a scandal! Or did "The MAN" manage to silence every American but YOU and take away all copies of the issue?

Please give us a link.


Edit: Found info on my own. Have not found ANY source though mentioning any details about "glue"(like Was glue used? and if so, what kind of glue?). As noted below(scroll to bottom of this post) it was the scientists who spotted these problems from teh word go. No one would have known the fossil was a forgery if not for the scientists/Darwinists.

References? Tattersal said these things in "Fossil Discovery Shakes Human Family Tree" USA TOday Thursday July 11, 2002 page 5D.


Thank you for the reference. I will read the story and be back to this but it is worthy of note that USAToday is NOT Science OR National Geographic.


Edit: USA TODAY is also NOT FREE to read. They want you to bguy these articles in order to read them. I am hunting for an additional source.


The National Geographic fiasco is cited in the March issue of that magazine, in the letters page, as well as in national newspapers, should be easy enough to discover. (And of course creationists are going to be all over this stuff, what do you expect?)


You would think! But I cannot find any mention of said story! I may have to dig in my closet to see if I have said issue.

Such work...


Edit: Found it. See below.

National Geographic is makes a fool of itself, and here an article that you should have *known* about before. "Dino-bird Link Smashed In Fossil Flap"- USA Today, Tuesday Jan 25, 2000 (Life Section) by Tim Friend

Again, thanks for the reference. No wonder I was having difficulty! It is a USAToday story(and you kept refering us to NG).

Here you go and play expert, and you didn't even know about one of the most infamous acts of Barnumism of the past ten years. You really do just swallow all this stuff on down, don't you?


Now see what I mean? I don't want to hear another PEEP out of you, crying about people calling you names! I will check out your story and we will SEE if I am already familiar with it or if it has any merit or if YOU even read the thing right.


In the meantime, sit quietly and behave.

Edit: As suspected, I did not hear much about it that I could recall because it simply was not a big issue, EXCEPT in terms of NG's credibility. If I were claiming expertise on National Geographic's credibility then I should be expected to know about this.


I mean, you don't even question anything you read, huh?


Same as name-calling ToM. You just use different syntax/semantics. The above is simpling calling me an 'Unthinking, unquestioning patsy'. It would be one thing to do this if you could make a case that I did not question what I read, but lacking anything to THAT effect, this is just moronic mud-slinging on your part.

The reason you are invoking this line of insult that compares me to a thoughtless, follow-the-heard, hive-mindist is precisely because you are trying to push the buttons of my skepticism. You know that skeptics are all about questioning and critical thinking. That is our one unique identifier. So you reason that "hey, I can really get under this guy's skin by painting him as the exact opposite of what he is!".

Childish ad hominems. You cannot attack the argument so you attack the person.


Actually, I question how much *you* read, and about this pet subject of yours if you didn't know about this.


We will see. Now that you have at least given us some semblance of a substantiative reference, I will try and figure out what you are talking about(kind of hard to get at through your foaming-at-the-mouth rantings that are all over the place with no fixed point of reference).


Edit: His references were not very substantial at all but I was able to find my own for the NG story.

You also didn't know about the fake fossil heart? You sayyou couldn't even find that such an article was published? I just did a passing search and found all manner of references to it. You're not very skilled at research Skeptic.


Then you should have no trouble giving us a link to a source so we can examine, correct? I am waiting.

Here's one right now listing the April 21st issue of the journal of SCience and the heart: http://www.calacademy.org/thisweek/archive/2000/20000426.html

Well, it's about TIME! Now before you cited Science magazine as teh source and have now cited what appears to be a different source. Whatever. I will check this out and address your contentions.


Edit: I read the article. Very short and makes no mention of any fraud or cover-up. I assume you have another source that alleges these things?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The article goes on to say, "a team of scientists from North Carolina State University reported in the April 21 issue of the journal Science. The heart, the first ever found from a dinosaur, has four chambers and a single artery, a combination that delivers oxygen-rich blood from the lungs to the rest of the body, like mammalian hearts do."

As I already mentioned this heart turned out to be, well, all mud. Just like the names of anyone who would've admitted to giving it a passing grade. Hey, and yours too as things emerge!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume the above link also tells how this alleged heart was revealed to be hoaxery and that the peer-review process broke down as you claimed?


Edit: I assumed wrong. Do you not have any source for this alleged fraud & cover-up story?

By the way, all that content about the peers from the reveiw board refusing to identify themselves? That was reported in the pages of the USA Today. Try reading, "Debate Over Dino 'Heart' Gets Blood Pumping by Tim Freind page 8 D October 3, 2000.


Will do.


Edit: Can't do. ToM's assurancxe that said reference will illuminate cannot be verified because USA ToDAY does not allow such browsing of their archives without paying for them.

James Hicks said, " Some of the talk at the last comparative physiology meeting was focused on who reviewed this paper, because any physiologist I know would have corrected it...No one at the meeting would fess up to reviewing it."


Just a side note as you seem to be trying to strawman me into defending a position I never held. This is(if accurate) not the first(or only) time the peer-review process would have been circumvented. Even recently(this year or late last year) there was a HUGE stink over a peer-reviewed Journal of Cladystics publishing a creationist attack on evolution that was neither scientific, nor in accordance with the journals standards of what said journal's area/field of study was. The person who pushed the paper through was apparently an anti-evolutionist trying to aid his creationist allies and who did not follow the proper protocol. Furthermore, said journal NEVER published creationism vs. evolution type papers on EITHER side because it was only a journal of cladystics and only concerned with the science of that field of biology.

So if you are trying to bait me into defending a position that peer-review has never been circumvented or broken down somehwere then you are barking up the wrong tree.

And NONE of these cases has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with "dogmatic Darwinism". You are AGAIN creating a strawman.

Oh, as for Leakey? You can look that up once again in the hard to find listed USA Today for Feb 17, 2005, "Rethinking Our Ancient Roots-Dan Veragano. Oh, let me guess, USA Today is just some creationist rag, right?


No one said that. I will check out the USAToday articles adn like a good SKEPTIC, I will also review the rebuttals to said charges(unlike yourself). It does bear notice though that USAToday is NOT, in ANY WAY a science journal. What some writer gets published within those pages is of little consequence to science friend.


Edit: Again, USA ToDAY is worthless as a reference. Strange that you are on about Leakey! Are you changing your mind about us "Darwinists"? We are some of Leakey's most vocal critics after all.


Oh, and I love how you seem to think I'm now calling *you* a creationist. Man, you see them behind every tree, don't you?

AGAIN, use the quote function. That way when you imagine something I said, before you get ready to respond you can try to quote where I said such adn then realize "Wow. He didn't even say that! What was I thinking?".

I did not say you called me a creationist. I pointed out YOUR OWN WORDS(see how handy the quote function is? No mistaking YOUR OWN WORDS) which stated that I was advocating creationism as the truly skeptical viewpoint.

Nice try though kiddo.

Here you puff yourself all up, say none of these things are listed, and yet, here they all are. You're eating a lot worse than crow. But you were all ready full of it anyway.

We shall see. We could have been through with this nonsense eons ago if you had simply included references to substantiate your claims to begin with instead of waiting until JUST NOW and then prancing about like you just won 'Prized Pig' at the fair, BEFORE we even get a chance to examine your citations!

Be back.


EDIT: I'm back.

USAToday does not allow you to view their archives for free, except for the same summarized tidbits that YOU already copy/pasted from there. Apparently the "Dino heart" story by Tim Friend was not such a big deal as I tried every Google search I could think of involving "Tim Friend", "Debate over Dino 'Heart'", etc. and could not get any hits to ANY pages.

Will keep trying though. Because I am a TROOPER! http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/biggrin.gif


Now about the National Geographic issue...

First of all, I am not sure how I got buggered into this argument in the first place. National Geographic and the Archaeoraptor fossil controversy has as much to do with "Dogmatic Darwinism" as it does with BATMAN!
National Geographic is NOT a peer-reived, scientific journal! NG has been around for what...? A CENTURY? DOes it surprise me that in that time we are able to find a case wherein someone jumped the gun before hearing back from scientists? Ironically, it was those "Darwinists" you complain about who suspected and revealed the nature of the alleged archaeoraptor(the fossils being genuine, just being two seperate species who were erroneously joined to appear as a single species).

I was finally able to find some info on this one:


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Archaeoraptor liaoningensis affair ("The what?!")

In February 1999, an interesting (but fraudulently pieced-together) fossil was purchased from a black-market dealer which seemed to be an unknown species showing an evolutionary transition from therapod dinosaurs to birds, made especially interesting by the lizard-like tail. The fossil had been illegally exported from China, but had come from a region where a number of exciting (genuine) finds of a similar sort had been turning up.

Scientists were brought on board to analyze, authenticate and clean the fossil, but all along the way there were doubts raised about the fossil's authenticity. The fossil had signs of cosmetic tampering, which was not uncommon for such items illegally smuggled out of China. Cautious objections were raised by the scientists to one another at various points, but in retrospect it is unclear exactly where the majority of the blame should fall. None of the them followed through with their suspicions to the larger scientific community, and there was also a certain amount of rose-coloured vision at work.

National Geographic became interested in the fossil, and wanted to publicize it along with a number of other recent discoveries. Their normal practice was to wait until a scientific article had appeared first. Two official peer-reviewed scientific journals (Science and Nature) rejected the article on Archaeoraptor that the scientists had prepared. National Geographic - which is not an official peer-reviewed scientific journal - decided to take a leap of faith, and made a big news announcement anyway, in October of 1999, followed by an article in their November issue.

Unfortunately, rumours in the palaeontological community were rampant, and in November the word was that the fossil was not entirely trustworthy. The big blow came in December. A Chinese scientist, brought on board to bring the fossil back to China where it belonged, discovered the fossil's counterslab (the other half of the rock showing the mirror image of the fossil's imprint). The tail in the counterslab looked fine, except that it wasn't attached to anything that looked remotely like Archaeoraptor's body. In other words, Archaeoraptor was two fossils - a lizard-like tail, and a bird-like body, which had been arranged together.

News of the forgery reached the popular press in January 2000. National Geographic was slow to confirm or deny the story. They eventually got a number of external experts together and officially verified the forgery in early April 2000. In their following October issue, they ran an "exposé" article trying to explain what had happened. Timothy Rowe, the person who ran the CT scans on the fossil, has since engaged in damage control, which I find rather ironic since a December 1999 article quotes him as saying, "I can say that a lot of the excitement over this fossil is going to be popped." - and this was before the counterslab had been discovered.

The above is a rather hasty summary of the whole affair. It was made more complicated by several factors. The "evolution from lizards to birds" crowd has had two warring factions: the "birds evolved from therapods" faction (currently in dominance), and the "birds evolved from something else, earlier" faction. People on both sides of the argument are quite... er, vocal, and the arguing that went on certainly didn't help clear up the Archaeoraptor affair. Additionally, there were huge personality conflicts between the fossil's purchaser and one of the scientists doing analyses on it. Throw in a bunch of scientific conferences and the rumour grapevine on top of this, and academic politics, and what you have is a mess.

A lot of articles mention Archaeoraptor and Piltdown side-by-side, and while both are indeed fossil forgeries, there are more differences than similarities between them - what few similarities there are, are minor points. (I don't want to say too much in case I write an essay about it.) The most important thing to keep in mind is this: Piltdown was accepted by the scientific community as a genuine fossil, although they were never able to reach a total consensus on how to interpret it. Archaeoraptor didn't even make it that far - the scientific community didn't trust the fossil from the start, and they were proved right. The Archaeoraptor affair served to echo the danger that the Piltdown affair drew attention to: the possibility of losing objectivity if you're not being careful enough.

The vicious battle between bird evolutionists will likely go on. China continues to yield new and interesting discoveries while struggling with its fossil black market. The two halves of Archaeoraptor are independently genuine. The tail half has been assigned to the species Microraptor zhaoianus, and the front bird half has been identified as Yanornis martini. A group of paleontologists are trying to get the term Archaeoraptor removed as a taxonomic name.

If you're interested in reading more about this subject, I would recommend reading the articles below for a good view of the issues that were involved. In roughly chronological order:


Sloan, Christopher P., 1999. "Feathers for T. rex?", National Geographic 196 (November): 98-107, and "On Assignment" section.
Monastersky, R., 1999. "Smuggled Chinese dinosaur to fly home", Science News 156 (Nov.20): 328.
Parker, Shafer, 1999. "Not birds of a feather", Report Newsmagazine (Alberta) 26.43 (Dec.6) 36-38.
Hecht, Jeff, 2000. "Piltdown bird", New Scientist 165 (Jan.29): 12.
Friend, Tim, 2000. "The 'missing link' that wasn't", USA Today, Feb. 1: 1A.
Borger, Julian, 2000. "Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? No, it's a fake", Guardian (Manchester) Feb.7.
Dalton, Rex, 2000. "Feathers fly over Chinese fossil bird's legality and authenticity", Nature 403 (Feb.17): 689-690.
Stokstad, Erik, 2000. "Learning to dissect dinosaurs - digitally", Science 288 (Jun.9): 1728-32.
Dalton, Rex, 2000. "Chasing the dragons", Nature 406 (Aug.31): 930-932.
Simons, Lewis M., 2000. "Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail", National Geographic 198 (October): 128-132.
Stokstad, Erik, 2000. "Tiny, feathered dino is most birdlike yet", Science 290 (Dec.8): 1871-72.
Normile, Dennis, 2001. "Internal Fights, Looting Hinder Work in the Field", Science 291 (Jan.12): 239-241.
Rowe, Timothy, et al., 2001. "The Archaeoraptor forgery", Nature 410 (Mar.29): 539-540 ; and Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol. 21 (Sept. 2001), supplement to no. 3, p. 95A.
Zhou, Zhonghe, et. al., 2002. "Archaeoraptor's better half", Nature 420 (Nov.21): 285.
If you can't find some of these, ask me; there are a lot of additional articles with similar content, and I have electronic versions of most of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>]


The above(emboldened emphasis mine to key certain points), which has some minor ommisions in my post(for brevity's sake, not to cover anything up). Can be found HERE (http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/tt_update.html)

Note that, while the editor of NG was certainly guilty of jumping the gun here, it was those pesky "Darwinists" that ToM is ranting about who blew the lid off the archaeoraptor. I am sure Darwinists everywhere will appreciate ToM's forthcoming apology http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/wink.gif .

In any case this issue is only a blemish on teh record of some folks at National Geographic and does NOT have anything to do with any "dogmatic Darwinism", nor does it even make NG out to be a "Tabloid monstrosity"(Weekly World News NEVER publishes retractions and full blown expose's of their own misteps. National Geographic DID(even if later than many would have liked)).

Will be back with a re-edit once I can find something (for free) on the other story.


------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-31-2005).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-31-2005).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainSkeptic (edited 03-31-2005).]

[Kwick22a]

Speaking of Batman, I kind of have a problem with the new utility belt. In the few pictures I've seen it seems a little bulky. I was hoping they would go for something like a police officer's utility belt, with pouches that look like they actually have tools in them. I had the same problem with the last four movies as well. The belts there all looked more decorative then functional. I mean he was pulling gadgets out like crazy and it really didn't look like he had anyplace to keep them.
Other than that I don't think I have to many complaints about the costume.

[yas3r]

That belt would look a lot worse if he didnt cut off those shoulder straps first....erm, I mean (spoiler)...

I had problems with the suit too until I read the script..it makes sense.

The belt, the suit, the helmet, the ears, the gauntlets-its all explained.

It needs to be like that because -all together now- Batman has no superpowers.

Put the billions and billions aside for a moment-its just like one of us going out crimefighting.

Swinging from building to building, entering water, resisting stabs, deflecting bullets, supporting your spinal cord, protecting your skull, armour for hand to hand fighting (more stylishly known as fighting mano-a-mano), keeping your face disguised....

...we'd need a suit a lot like that.

My only problem is that he is camoflaged at night, apart from that belt which sticks out like a sore bum.

[ToM]

Oh Man. Skeptic is now saying that to find disenchantment with the duplicity of irresponsible researchers is to "be" creationist, because you end up serving "the creationist agenda." In other words, you cannot examine what gets published in *any* objective sense, otherwise you're serving the creationists. So you simply must accept at face value these materials, be they fake or not, and never, surely never speak of such frauds in public. That of course means we surrender our intellectual freedom. Sounds more like a religious cult than science to me.

Man, that's exactly what I'm talking about. And it becomes clear (actually it was clear a long time ago) that there's just no talking with you. That is, unless you're saying, "Hey, could you pass me the purple Kool Aid please?" I'm sorry, but noting that Geographic published fruadulent findings, as did Science is not a creationist argument. It's just what happened. To "debunk" that by simply calling it "creationist" is just to build a strawman (or in your case, a Wickerman).

And *then* you tell me that there's *no* "camp" of Darwinian thinkers who cling rigidly to dogma. Funny. Right here you say that to criticize fraud on the part of evolutionary theorists is *not* to be done by anybody but creationists, because it serves that agenda. Sounds like *spew the party line* and deny the rest to me. Dogmatic to the last, huh?

As for the "Darwinists" over the fossil fakery, I'm not critical of all evolutionary theorists, merely those with the lack of objectivity that damages reputations of journals and science in general. And yet, you try to make it seem as if I've never said any such thing.

But the big laugh is that for all your claims of being a big expert, you had no idea at all about the faked fossils, either of them, as infamous as they were, or the new data about the Leakey skull. I'll let you in on a little something. The reason I picked the USA Today was for *two* purposes. The first was to demonstrate that the information was highly prosaic, available to nearly *everyone* (it *is* one of the most widely distributed papers). And yet, *you* for all your self aggrandizement with regard to this avenue of science, had never heard of *any* of these things. School bus drivers and check out ladies at Walmart knew about this, it was widespread. It was unheard of by you because you're *not* the informed person you stack yourself up to be online. Otherwise, you'd have known of it *all.* Man, you've made a fool of yourself (and here you thought you could back me into a corner)

The other reason I used the USA Today, was *because* you have to *pay* to read their material. I could've picked this out from all manner of locations online. But I figured you're just frenzied enough that you'd end up *wasting* money just to *show* what a fool you'd made of yourself in the end. By now you've paid to read those articles, and find information you could've gotten elsewhere for free. So, I hung you with your own rope Skeptic. And I made you shell out of your own pocket to look stupid. See, you kept implying that I was calling you " a sucker", so I thought I might as well show you if you were or not. I didn't *need* to call you a name, I helped you live up to one.

Oh, and that "remark" that you explained to be "name calling" that I made? I compared your responses with the watermark of the under educated. That isn't a name, it served as a description of your behavior. The observation remains intact and secure as you continue down this ruinous road.

The use of the UBB code produces memory errors in my browser, just so you know.

Oh, as for your little threat? It was your promise to make nice with you or suffer your "following me" around and humiliating me whereever I post. Of course, that's one club you don't have enough arm to lift anyway.

Anybody reveiwing these posts will read how *you* introduced *your* pet war with religious fundamentalists, and on several occasions. Actually, it was you who then brought in this whole Darwin idiocy and then started to paint me as a creationist, in spite of my correcting that forever and anon. My response was to refute this spurious claim about myself as you *couldn't* let it go. You know, just as you've continued to say that I'm proposing some "conspiracy" with relationship to subtext in this movie. Continually I've spent entire paragraphs expressing that it has *nothing* to do with any "conspiracy" and yet over and again you say this is my position. It's almost like I'm not even saying anything and you're making up my positions for me.

You're telling it like it is , huh? Man, you're telling it like it is in your own mind, even what opinions I express. You tweak them to mean something entirely different than what I've said they are.

That's key to my feeding your trolling BTW. I'd have dropped the whole thing, because I never wanted to get into it anyway, but you attempted to mischaracterize me. So, I had to address that. What you wanted was for be not to bow out respectfully, but to allow you to mischaracterize me gracefully.

Before I leave you to play in your imaginary world, let me just say this. If you were to make up *any* detail regarding myself and an outfit like NAMBLA, well, I'm very litigious. And my work allows me paid legal representation. Incidentally, I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that your reactions (in the form of your responses) do *not* exist in proportion to whatever stimulus I've provided. You're way over the top, reactionary. Keep it tucked in Skeptic.

Ah, good! At last some *other* people are posting here! I'm going to start a new threat about the new teaser trailer, maybe address some of what you two are saying. I figure this thread needs fresh air, and I'm already pretty much repeating myself badly by this point on these details. But I agree about the belt, still, I don't need it all explained away. I mean, yeah the cape can be used to hide him, but it can also be used to make him fall to his death! lol! I like the reality based stuff in this movie, but they need only take that stuff so far. It isn't realistic for a man on rooftops to wear a huge cape. It just looks cool.

ToM

------------------
"Reality is that which
remains the same in
spite of our opinion of
it."

[CaptainSkeptic]

Oh Man. Skeptic is now saying that to find disenchantment with the duplicity of irresponsible researchers is to "be" creationist, because you end up serving "the creationist agenda."

AGAIN, LEARN TO USE THE QUOTE FUNCTION. that way, if i DID say something like you claimed, it would be undeniable and obvious.

But I NEVER said ANYTHING remotely LIKE THAT! EVER! You are lying to cover lies.


In other words, you cannot examine what gets published in *any* objective sense, otherwise you're serving the creationists.


AGAIN, this fallacy you repeat is called the "strawman" fallacy. When you get into college, if you are still interested in debate, you will learn all about this and why it is a no-no. The above is something YOU contraucted. it is not a postion I have held or expressed. It is one thing to be corrected once or twice for slipping up but this is probably the 12th time(at LEAST!) I have pointed out this specific fallacy to you.

So you simply must accept at face value these materials, be they fake or not, and never, surely never speak of such frauds in public.


What are you talking about?


That of course means we surrender our intellectual freedom. Sounds more like a religious cult than science to me.


Me too. Thankfully, it is a fictional boogeyman you have created.

Man, that's exactly what I'm talking about.


You have no idea what you are talking about. That's why I keep embarrasing you here.

And it becomes clear (actually it was clear a long time ago) that there's just no talking with you.


Then SHUT UP! At least I know when a debate subject is in approproiate at a forum for superhero movies! At least I can QUOTE you directly adn only repsond to things you ACTUALLY SAY rather than making stuff up out of thin air!


That is, unless you're saying, "Hey, could you pass me the purple Kool Aid please?" I'm sorry, but noting that Geographic published fruadulent findings, as did Science is not a creationist argument.

'
AGAIN, I never said it was. That is not my dog you are kicking.

It's just what happened. To "debunk" that by simply calling it "creationist" is just to build a strawman (or in your case, a Wickerman).

Again, the irony here is that the above is a PERFECT example of the strawman fallacy. Dismissing something like that as a "creationist" ploy would not constitute a "debunking". Debunking requires more thorough and solid refutation of a claim.

That is where I come in... http://www.comics2film.com/UBB/biggrin.gif

And *then* you tell me that there's *no* "camp" of Darwinian thinkers who cling rigidly to dogma.


What I told you(you would know this if you could figure ouyt the quote function) is that the "Dogmatic Darwinist" ruse is for the most part a creationist construction. I NEVER said that no where in the world could such an individual or even small group of individuals be found who abandon scientific method adn put on blinders. But these would be so rare that we have not run across any in DECADES! There is no "camp" comparitive to the "creationist camp" as you have claimed. NAtional Geographic's editors jumping the gun had absolutely NOTHING to do with science or Darwinism(in fact it was the "Darwinists" who exposed the big mess).

Funny. Right here you say that to criticize fraud on the part of evolutionary theorists is *not* to be done by anybody but creationists, because it serves that agenda.


WHERE DID I EVER SAY ANY SUCH THING? NO excuses boy. Show us the quote. Otherwise shut up.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
As for the "Darwinists" over the fossil fakery, I'm not critical of all evolutionary theorists, merely those with the lack of objectivity that damages reputations of journals and science in general.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Such as...?

And yet, you try to make it seem as if I've never said any such thing.


You started an anti-evolutionist rant in THIS THREAD. You tried to substantiate your "There is a camp of dogmatic Darwinists who are even more silly than the creationsits"(paraphrased) line by pointing to an error made by non-scientists, working for a non-peer reviewed magazine.

But the big laugh is that for all your claims of being a big expert, you had no idea at all about the faked fossils, either of them, as infamous as they were, or the new data about the Leakey skull.


1)I dig into hundreds of these sorts of claims, most of which would, if true, be a WAY bigger problem for the scientific cimmunity and evolution in general than this insignifigant inciddent at NG. That the NG episode did not register with me is no surprise.

2)I know all about Leakey. What does he have to do with anything here? Youare desperately grasping at straws here.


3)Your other story about the fossilized heart fraud is still unverified. I can find numerous reports of the discovery but you have yet to provide a link to a story about the alleged fraud.

I'll let you in on a little something. The reason I picked the USA Today was for *two* purposes. The first was to demonstrate that the information was highly prosaic, available to nearly *everyone* (it *is* one of the most widely distributed papers).


But the information is NOT so freely available. USA TODAY CAHRGERS MONEY for you tho read their articles. I am not about to pay moeny to do so given your reputation for dishonesty and trying to lure people on wild goose-chases.


And yet, *you* for all your self aggrandizement with regard to this avenue of science, had never heard of *any* of these things.


It's not that I never heard of them. It's that they are insignifigant. They don't even support the rants you intiially offered them in support of. We are left right were we were at the beginning with you claiming that some dogmatic "Darwinist cap" is out there ruining science and you STILL have not offered a single shred of supoport for this. You have taken us on unrelated tangent after unrelated tangent and that is all.


School bus drivers and check out ladies at Walmart knew about this, it was widespread.


Again, the is the ad numeri fallacy and it is made doubly fallacious by virtue of being completely FALSE! School bus drivers adn Wal MArt checkout ladies no nothing about this. It wasn't a big story(sorry to break your heart). Black market forgeries from China are unfortunately common. National Geographic's then editor simply made a stupid mistake in not waiting for the scietific analysis before publishing the story.


It was unheard of by you because you're *not* the informed person you stack yourself up to be online.


And apperently, as "uninformed" as I am, I am STILL far better informed than YOU. You insult yourself here kiddo.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The other reason I used the USA Today, was *because* you have to *pay* to read their material.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


???

Oh I can't wait to hear this madman's grand scheme. Tell us Skeletor, how youcleverly sought to foil us by refering us to a 'pay to read' site!


I could've picked this out from all manner of locations online.


SURE you could. Somehow I doubt that someone who cannot even manage simple UBB Code can do better than Google itself at finding such information.


But I figured you're just frenzied enough that you'd end up *wasting* money just to *show* what a fool you'd made of yourself in the end.


LOL!! Sorry to disapoint then but...waitaminute, NO I'm NOT! I am GLAD I did not spend money to check out your references! If that was the big aspiration you were striving to reach(getting me to pay moeny for your references) then you would have had an easier time pulling it off by first making yourself out to be HONEST or seem TRUSTWORTHY. We knew from teh word 'go' that you were not so I doubt ANYONE here was going to fall for that crap!

BTW, are you even listening to yourself here? You are claiming(nay, BOASTING!) to have hatched a scheme to get people to go to USA TODAY's site and be tricked into paying them money by insulting themk for 2 full pages of this thread!?!

That is just pathetic junior.


By now you've paid to read those articles, and find information you could've gotten elsewhere for free.


*Chuckle* OOOOOooo-KAAAAayyy!


So, I hung you with your own rope Skeptic.

WTF are you talking about?!?


And I made you shell out of your own pocket to look stupid.


I take it this is as close as you come to saying "I was wrong.I messed up. Sorry." eh?

See, you kept implying that I was calling you " a sucker",


Where did I imply you were calling me a "sucker"? Can someone here who knows how to use the quote function help our friend out here?

so I thought I might as well show you if you were or not. I didn't *need* to call you a name, I helped you live up to one.


In all the YEARS I have been engaged in internet and formal debates, I have to hand it to you, this is a first! Out of all teh crazies adn kooks I have ever had the displeasure to tussle with I have never before had one try and excuse his shortcomings with such a wonky claim as the one you offered here! It is so mezmerizingly stupid and preposterous that I do believe I shall archive it and direct others to it whenever they mention how idiotic some guy they were debating was. Kind of like producing Ed Wood's Orgy of the Dead when someone claims to have seen the worst movie ever(and it is not Ed Wood's classic).

Oh, and that "remark" that you explained to be "name calling" that I made? I compared your responses with the watermark of the under educated.


You called me "ignorant", "uneducated", an unthinking patsy, and a host of other names.

The "watermark" was your own creation as well and was a logical fallcy called the 'No True Scotsman'(with a bit of ad populi thrown in for good measure). It is no better than someone arguing that "As an educated person, I do not harbor the impossible conviction that the Fantastic Four movie will be worth watching.". That would be the same fallacy because whether you expect a movie to be good or not is not a "watermark" for how educated one is.

That isn't a name, it served as a description of your behavior.


Wrong. It was your own mischaracterization of my 'behavior' with the assertion that this mischaracterization idnicated I was "ignorant", "uneducated" and 'an unthinking patsy' for the Hollywood machine.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
The use of the UBB code produces memory errors in my browser, just so you know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


*Spews monitor with diet soda* ROTFLMAO!!!!

Oh my....(*catches breath*) that was too funny. I gotta hand it to you, that is the first time I have heard soemone earnestly try adn assert that his browser was to blame for him not being able to cease MISQUOTING or FALSELY ATTRIBUTING QUOTES WHICH DO NOT EXIST TO HIS IDEALOGICAL OPPONENT! LOL!

Here let me try:

ToM, why did you claim to be "a star of child pornography" earlier? What did that have to do with our debate?

Oh if the above quote of yours is inaccurate or not something you said then you will have to excuse me. My browser sucks!

ROTFLMAO!

Oh, as for your little threat? It was your promise to make nice with you or suffer your "following me" around and humiliating me whereever I post.


Okay, ANYONE and I mean can ANYONE HERE substantiate this accusation of ToM's? I would ask ToM to show us where I said anything like that but apparently his browser does not allow him to copy adn paste quotes from other posters. HE even used double quotations("'s) in the above so I must have specifically said I was going to be "following him" around unless he "made nice".

Who is the moderator around here? I am quite sure this is a violation of the ROC.


Anybody reveiwing these posts will read how *you* introduced *your* pet war with religious fundamentalists, and on several occasions.


Wrong. What's more, my browser seems okay because I can provide the exact quotes to show what went down skippy.

I won't even go back to the earliest examples of your attempts to force teh debate into all sorts of scattered areas. I will start with the following and work my way through YOU insertion of anti-evolutionist nonsense etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What you seem to be missing is that "intelligent" and "dark" aren't enough. You're all just pleased these two words are in the vocabulary of the producership after the bubblegum gothics you had the last couple times around. But Ang Lee, a vastly superior artist than either Nolan or Goyer, came out with an intelligent and dark Hulk film, and missed the mark. It was just the wrong movie for the character, it wasn't what the audience knew, or wanted. It misfired with one hundred and sixty million. Batman Begins costs even *more* than Hulk. Dark, possibly intelligent, it can still be all wrong.

Hey, glad we're on that subject! Hulk was *another* film to directly reference the homeland security culture, and it alienated audiences.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now it would be one thing to bring up the Hulk to make some point about Batman. That would have been fine. But notice what ToM does? He characterizes Hulk as "intelligent and Dark"(the audience disagrees with him, for the most part thinking the film "Stupid and wasteful") adn then goes on to call Ang Lee a "vastly superior artist" to Nolan. That would be fine to have as an opinion but the insertion above was clearly a TROLL. You might as well have posted about how Dungeons & Dragons was a superior work of heroic fnatasy to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings, AT the LotR message boards!

And then he announces "Hy! Glad we are on the subject[ of Hulk }!" as if we just happened to wander there rather than being forced down that alley by ToM's trolling!


Next we move on to this:


Hulk running around desert locales to what most patrons took to be "Arabic sounding music" didn't exactly sit right in the stomach of a lot of folks (I thought it sounded more Chinese, but hey, that's just me).

He starts off with this bald assertion that "most patrons" did not take kindly to Hulk running around the deser and that these same "most patrons" though the music was "Arabic sounding". I can say with 100% certainty that I am not alone in being the very first to hear that MOST of the patrons came to these conclusions but rather than provide substnatiation, ToM tries to excuse himself with the('Not ME though! I am on YOUR side! I thought the music sounded Chinese but damn all those 'other people'...'. Kind of like the mysterious "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed" only not as well substantiated.


Next:

You list such "a-list" actors as Gary Oldham and so on. Let me put you a question, since that awful Dracula movie in the early 90's, what major theatrical presentation has Oldham headlined *successfully* to the screen? Christian Bale, start of American Psycho, a box office misfire, was also the star of Reign of Fire a few years back. This film was one of the most dismal flops of the past decade. Michael Caine, yeah, he's carried box office clought ever since he starred in Jaws 4: The Revenge. That's right, he's the star of a *sequel* to a 3-D movie.

Instead of just disagreeing with my observation that they finally had a good cast of solid actors who were enthused about making the movie, you have to go off on a tangent about how awful you think Dracula was or how "dismal" the box office for Reign of Fire was or the fact that Michael Cained had to do crappy movies 20+ years ago.

None of those charges refutes my argument that this is a cast of such caliber that it is hard to believe the producers managed to pull it off! Oldham and Bale are considered tops by ANY film critic and what more needs to be said about Freeman or Liam Neeson?

You were trolling for arguments abgout how good/bad Dracula and Reign of Fire were, pure and simple.


Next:


I must assume you're some high school student Skeptic, who hasn't taken lit, or ever read much of anything beyond comic books.

The difference between YOUR "name calling" and MY "name calling" is one of syntax. If I am going to call you an imbecille, I will just come out and call you one. ANYONE can put on intellectual heirs and offer what you did above adn then hide behind 'But I didn't say you WERE *whatever*, I just said I must ASSUME you are a *whatever* who cannot read anything without pictures.

It does not matter one iota whether you say "You're an idiot." or "I must assume you are incapable of the rationality necessary to avoid flossing with barbed-wire." Both are the same. WHen one tries to distract others by continually pointing at things which are irrelevant, they are conceding the fact that 'They've got nothing'.


Next we have:

You know, comics are *not* literature, no matter what they tell you on DVD commentaries.


Now praytell, what purpose did the above statemetn have other than a backhanded insult towards whatever comic book readers may be lurking here, and thus another atempt at trolling?


Next we will look at MY quote, in context, wherein I mentioned my debates elsewhere with creationists. it will be painfully obvious as to why I mentioned this adn that I was absolutely not trying to start any "creationism debate".


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>No wonder you do not provide citations to back up your claims. You are completely unfamiliar with such things. To provide references to substantiate claims you make is just a rule of debate because otherwise we end up with two people shouting non-facts at each other adn beating each other up over uninformed opinions.
I constantly debate Creationists for example for many hours every week. If one of them contends that "macro-evolution" is impossible because the earth is only 10,000 years old, he is obliged to provide a citation for how he coame to such a conclusion about the age of the earth. If he provides a non-scientific, fundementalist web site as a link to where he is getting his info, then I only have to show that the authors of said site are not geologists or evolutionary biologists or paleontologists and that round goes to ME.
THAT is the point of providing references. If you do not provide them when you are stating somethingt as fact that is generally not accepted as fact, then I have no way to show you how your information is right or wrong, other than by providing my own(hopefully more credible) citations.

The fact that people can provide bad references does not absolve you of the responsibility.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note that the above occured after NUMEROUS requests for ToM to back up the wild claims he was making. He refused(he now tells us it is because his browser sucks that he cannot follow the rules of debate *sigh*). I tried to explain to him, by way of analogy why it was necessary to provide references/substantiation.

Clearly, the important aspect of teh above quote is this request and nothing at all to do with creationism or evolution.

But rather than explain why he does not feel obligated to provide such references, ToM responded with yet another troll as we see here:


Oh, I see you debate creationists. You know, *true* skeptics take amusement at how creationists and the disciples of Darwin (the great plagiarist of Wallace) debate "reality." To us, we're simply seeing the mutual fanging of dueling dogmatics. They're religion trying to be science, Darwin's sons are science trying to be religion, with the facts altered to fit the views rather than the views altered to suit the *facts* nearly as much as the ten thousand years old club.


In other words, he could not explain why he was unable to comply with my request for substantiation and instead chose to go off on another tangent!


Now if there is ANYONE here who can shed light on this whole debale which supports anything ToM is harping on in here, something maybe I am not seeing, then I will be glad to listen. The reason I ask is because ToM is fond of speaking for others(usually some nebulous "Lost's of others" or "Most patrons") so I wanted to see how many others here felt he was making any sense or that I was being unfair to him.

Actually, it was you who then brought in this whole Darwin idiocy and then started to paint me as a creationist, in spite of my correcting that forever and anon.


Wrong. See above(Cool being able to use the quote function huh? You should download a different browser so you can join us! LOL)


My response was to refute this spurious claim about myself as you *couldn't* let it go.


YOU(as I have shown by QUOTING YOU DIRECTLY) rambled off anti-Darwinian nonsense straight from Creationist web sites. YOU did not identify your position OTHER than to do such.
It is COMPLETEWLY IRRELEVANT whether you are a creationist or what type of creationist you may be. YOU were advocating creationist positions/arguments and conspriacy theories which are verfified urband legends(Darwin plagiarizring Wallace) and irrelevant distractions(National Geographic).

Now I WARNED you that this is my area. I can school you forty ways until Sunday on evolution adn rational discourse in general. It is what I DO! I repeatedly suggested other sites we could go to to engage this debate if you felt you MUST disregard my warnings.

I NEVER, EVER warned you to "make nice" or "agree with me" or that I would "follow you around" or any other such nonsense. THAT is why you cannot provide the quotes so spare us the transparent and silly "My browser has problems." cowardice.

You think that with all the imbecilles I debate online that I would choose to break with my own code of ethics adn rational disposition to hound YOU?!? Don't flatter yourself.

You know, just as you've continued to say that I'm proposing some "conspiracy" with relationship to subtext in this movie.


Listen, we understand that you heard someone on TV talking about "subtext" and you were quite impressed. Like any kid you have since then decided to invoke said phrase whenever you can. "Subtext this" and "subtext that".

Conspiracy theories however, are NOT "subtext" adn you do not get away with spouting conspiracy theories by saying they are not conspiracy theoreis. ALL conspiracy theorists claim theirs is not a conspiracy theory but rather the simple "truth".


Continually I've spent entire paragraphs expressing that it has *nothing* to do with any "conspiracy" and yet over and again you say this is my position. It's almost like I'm not even saying anything and you're making up my positions for me.


Oh THAT is rich! LOL!

That's key to my feeding your trolling BTW. I'd have dropped the whole thing, because I never wanted to get into it anyway, but you attempted to mischaracterize me. So, I had to address that. What you wanted was for be not to bow out respectfully, but to allow you to mischaracterize me gracefully.


???


WTF are you talking about?

Before I leave you to play in your imaginary world, let me just say this. If you were to make up *any* detail regarding myself and an outfit like NAMBLA, well, I'm very litigious. And my work allows me paid legal representation. Incidentally, I'm sure it hasn't gone unnoticed that your reactions (in the form of your responses) do *not* exist in proportion to whatever stimulus I've provided. You're way over the top, reactionary. Keep it tucked in Skeptic.

Yeah, right. You and me both pal. That is why I never make up details about people(as you did repeatedly. Fortunately for you, your misattributions/false quotes and mischaracterizations do not rise to the level of litigation. Doesn't excuse the behavior though.

That takes the prize for most inoccuous threat anyone has ever offered.

And let THAT be the end of this nonsense.


------------------
"I am in a very peculiar business...I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know."-James Randi

[Znluvx]

I have a question:

Does anyone know if and how Batman's detective skills will be presented in BB?

I've heard, seen, read all about the training, suit, mobile etc. but nothing on how he'll be protrayed as the best detective this side of Sherlock Holmes.

I envision it as CSI meets John Doe (defunct Fox show).

[This message has been edited by Znluvx (edited 04-22-2005).]

[DarrenJSeeley]

When the new improved boards went up, I was a bit surprised that this thread wasn't closed, and/or still remains.

After reading the long posts including absurd ones and way off topic, I just have a few, brief comments:

1) The actor's name playing Gordon is Gary Oldman, not Oldham.

2) I don't know if Begins will have a train sequence or not: I do know things change. Look at the history of the first Burton film. I recall in early drafts of Tim Burton's Batman, Batman rode a horse at one point and had a confrontation with Joker in the daylight (the latter is still evidenced in the Batman movie tie in novelization, writtten by Criag Shaw Garner; the former is still recalled because Sean Young was first cast as Vicky Vale and injured herself during reheasals for the ultimately unfilmed, yet scripted scene


3) I liked the Hulk film, but what did it in was the picture in picture effect. It was distracting.


4) The whole idea of a pro-Bush/Republican agenda hidden within the context of the new Batman film and why it is there is reasonable, but absurd. First, while some films greenlit and made during a political shift reflect the times (such as the Reagan era) you must keep in mind that there will be both 'pro' and 'con'.

Second, Tom, while I hope you don't imply the Dems approve of terrorism (your point was stated several times that it is only a Republican concern) I will point out an understated truth : In film and comics, the heroes will *always* fight villians, some of who want to (excuse the cliche) use a form of fear (i.e. terror) to acheive thier goals. Furthermore, when we go to the movies and see. for example, James Bond foil the villian, we go for escapism. The villian will be up to some form of terror/world domination, but there is no overt political statement in such action, leave your brain at the door action pictures.

5) I am a creationist. If you believe in creationism or not good for you. But the debate, regardless of opinon, wrong or right, is another topic, for another forum.

6) If it makes you feel better, I really haven't seen you namecalling to anyone, but I have seen such responses to you, calling you names. The furthest you go is 'fanboy'. I too think 'fanboy' mentality goes too far off the mark. But the bad news is that you have made your point, and you fail to move on.

7) Micheal Keaton made a good Batman. As much as I like Val Kilmer, I like him in other movies. I think Chris Bale, however, will be the best Batman/Wayne since Keaton, and might even be better.

8) Not evey hero film loses the girl at the end. You did see 'The Shadow", right?
8)

[Znluvx]

I'm sure I'll get shelled for this, but what the heck...

While I agreed with some of the things ToM postulated, like many here I found the bulk of his theories hard to digest, particularly the idea that the studio/producers/director were trying to attach BB's "subtext" with American fear of terror and terrorists (ie the "industrial military complex" etc.)

Then, recently I saw, heard, read more on how in the film it is Ra's desire to destroy Gotham City because of its wickedness and evil that prompts Bruce to return and save it.

Isn't that how terrorists (al Queda) sees America? As wicked and evil and worthy of being destroyed. Wasn't that the aim of Sept. 11th? To destroy and ruin the city that they saw as the symbol of America.

Maybe Tom was onto something, especially if it is accepted that Gotham is the stand-in for NYC.

Just the opinion of a NewYorker.

[easy D]

Well, al Queda sees most of the world who doesn't embrace Islam as that. They just don't like America because they feel it is too powerful. I heard that they don't want the U.S.A. to go out and police the world (as demonstrated in Team America; World Police), so they wanted to show how weak the country really was. Of course, they didn't plan on America coming in, kicking ass, and liberating Afghanistan from their rule.

[imported_Thom]

Umm... Hope nobody minds, but I'm gonna close this topic while it's calm. I would've before, but I wasn't a mod for the Batman forums when the heated debate was going on.