Talk:Batman Begins/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Production section
Thge production section is currently tagged as needing expansion. I would tend to disagree. Not every article needs to be 50kb. At the risk of being too bold I didn't remove it. I thought I'd come here and seek comments first. Quadzilla99 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- The expansion tag is there because the timeline is incomplete. I think the second paragraph needs to be revised to be more relevant. Something like using the restaurant Plateau in Canary Wharf is not relevant at all and should probably be removed (even though I added it, heh). What needs to be done is detail the wrap-up of the production process and cover the post-production process as well, depending on what information is available. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, I think that the Critical response could be revised and expanded. The existing reviews don't actually say what was so great about this Batman film in comparison to the other Batman films. In addition, the film wasn't universally acclaimed, so there should be one or two negative reviews to have a balanced perspective. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Erik: I took the liberty to change the first two sentences again. I don´t understand why we would have to repeat the fact that it´s an untitled project, it´s pretty obvious the two guys were hired for the same movie. I also don´t think we need to use the phrase "Warner Bros. Pictures hired" twice. This way I feel we get the same information across, while making it look better, don´t you agree?--Threedots dead 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've reformatted the sections to conform to general timeline of production. The Filmaker 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Erik: I took the liberty to change the first two sentences again. I don´t understand why we would have to repeat the fact that it´s an untitled project, it´s pretty obvious the two guys were hired for the same movie. I also don´t think we need to use the phrase "Warner Bros. Pictures hired" twice. This way I feel we get the same information across, while making it look better, don´t you agree?--Threedots dead 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The setup works for me. I was kind of getting bored with the previous layout, anyway. :) What do you think Batman Begins needs to get done to take the next step? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty close. I personally don't believe that the Cast section should contain spoilers. We need to make sure that what is now the "Filming" section can't be fleshed out any further. I agree that the "Reception" section needs to be expanded and the DVD poster photo should be removed. The Filmaker 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- The setup works for me. I was kind of getting bored with the previous layout, anyway. :) What do you think Batman Begins needs to get done to take the next step? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Citation for use
- Stephen Pizzello (June 2005). "Batman takes Wing". American Cinematographer.
I think this'd be nice to add into the article. Alientraveller 19:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Daniel Fierman (2005-04-29). "Bat Outta Hell". Entertainment Weekly.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
So would this. Alientraveller 09:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Gothic Oedipus: subjectivity and Capitalism in Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wing Kid is also an excellent interview with Nolan on the themes. Alientraveller 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- [1][2][3][4] SHH! interviews. Alientraveller 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Scarecrow image
I think the image should stay on wikipedia, because it also explains the other character in the film. And as I've seen in other articles I've seen images to illustrate the characters in the film. Zerorules677 06:50, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, then one of the others needs to go. Which do you feel your image should replace? We can't have 3 images in the plot section. Screenshots are copyrights pieces of material, and we have to provide a fair-use rationale for every copyrighted image we use, and we cannot adequately rationale the use of 3 images for 1 topic of information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think we could put it in Influences? Zerorules677 10:03, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't read that section in awhile, but if there is talk of the influences for the Scarecrow, I think that would be fine. Just so long as it's more than just a sentence of talk. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- It really is just a sentence in Influences. I think it would be better if we could find more information about why the Scarecrow was created the way he was -- not based on the comics, but in the adaptation process for real-world context. For example, something like Nolan saying, "A full Scarecrow costume would look too silly on screen," you know? Which is why I think the Production section has a way to go in terms of more information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I own the "Batman Begins" Two-Disc Deluxe Edition DVD and on the extras, Nolan told Batman experts to help them on the script for Batman Begins, and so the experts helped them and told them no to go back with villains such as The Penguin or any previous villain that was portrayed on film. So, that's why The Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul were introduced in the film. Also, another "Influence" they liked the Batman story: The Long Halloween and brought BOTH Carmine Falcone and The Scarecrow. Is that good enough? Zerorules677 15:17, 01 May 2007 (UTC)
We have the info about the "Long Halloween" comics and stuff. What we need is atleast a stable paragraphs worth of information about the Scarecrow to help support a fair use rationale about the image. If the Begins DVD has more information on the creation of Scarecrow, then sort through it and add it to the article. If you are unsure how/where to add it, then drop it off here and we'll help you format the citations and find the proper place for the information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
We'll DO!!! Zerorules677 06:51, 02 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag
This tag has been removed twice from the article on the premise that the article is not highly relevant to the Chicago WP. Obviously, banner templates have 4 levels of priority. This argument could be used to remove the tag from any page designated as a low priority by a project thus eliminating the possibility of improvement by that project. If it is not can you tell me what priority=low tags are appropriate and which are not. I.E., are there any tags low priority tags that you would not remove from this article. Do you oppose the use of banner templates to assign low priority. I think your argument is a ratification of a importance tag if you do not universally oppose use of the low priority tag.
Generally, WP:WPChi puts the {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag on movies that were either filmed in part in Chicago or set in Chicago. Although currently I only have a citation for one building, I recall that several others looked familiar when viewing the movie. It is likely that other Chicagoans with other expertises and resources might be able to improve the article. You might know better than me, but I even believe the Chicago 'L' is part of the movie. The argument against this one is that other cities in which the movie was set do not tag the article. This is not meaningful because few cities are actively tagging their articles. Most cities are just getting their efforts going. For example, Hong Kong has only actively tagged about 400 articles with priority ratings out of a total of 2700 articles. The majority of their articles are low and mid priority like this would be if they got to it. London is a little further along in actively tagging at about 1000 but only have a total of 1440. More than half of their tagged articles are low priority where this would likely fall if they got to it. I am not familiar with the work of either city but I know most cities have not tagged all articles important to them. For example, I was looking at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) and noticed the NY WP had not tagged them. Nor had they tagged the New York Mets. It is hit or miss and mostly miss with low importance.
I guess you could oppose any low importance tag, but am not sure why you would wish to do so. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the application of this template seems trivial. Batman Begins was not only filmed in Chicago, but several other locations as well. It seems more reasonable to include a film under the scope of WikiProject Chicago if filming was primarily based there. I'm not sure how much of a case this was with Batman Begins, but based on the cited information available, there appear to have been multiple locations. The inclusion of this template seems to warrant the inclusion of templates based on the other regions in which Batman Begins was filmed. Is this a common practice for city WikiProjects? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not familiar with the tagging objectives of other city projects. Here is the WP:WPChi priority scale. Keep in mind that the tag is placed on an article as information for project members. Thus the question is whether our scale is reasonable and whether movies filmed in part in Chicago fall within this scale. If every scene in a movie was filmed/set in Chicago or some scenes were filmed/set in Chicago the notice of the tag is to tell Chicago editors that there is an article out there that is of interest to select Chicagoans. It is not always the case that every scene in a movie was filmed at a single location. I am not sure how relevant it is to our editors which city other scenes were filmed in. I have not seen this movie for some time, but recall seeing several familiar settings. Among the things an afficionado might be able to confirms would be whether the Chicago 'L', Chicago River, elements of Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago or its subcategories, or elements of Category:Streets in Chicago were incorporated into the film. This project tag should not be evaluated based on whether Hong Kong or London WPs have considered it. It should be evaluated on whether a tag should be placed to tell Chicago editors that they might be able to assist by adding other details about things like Chicago 'L', Chicago River, elements of Category:Buildings and structures in Chicago or its subcategories, or elements of Category:Streets in Chicago. It would probably make for an interesting paragraph if someone from Chicago could find out which other background elements were from Chicago. I am not an expert on such things. However, it is possible that another Chicago editor might be able to help this article and a tag was placed for this purpose. I would like to add it back if it is not a problem. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your consent to tag the article. I am going to add a banner shell as well because the page is getting cluttered. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ra's al Ghul
Should somewhere we mention that it is not completley clear if Ra's al Ghul survived or not. No one is really positive either way, but should this be noted in this article. On the Ra's al Ghul page here at Wikipedia it says something about him not being dead. (Supposedly) ManofSTEEL2772 02:00 AM July 5 2007
- Well Wikipedia isn't the place to speculate. He died with the train which fell and blew up. Ergo, dead until actually resurrected. Alientraveller 08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- We aren't speculating anything. Officially, his body never was found so we don't know. I don't see a problem mentioning that.Arnabdas 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree -- it's speculation to assume that Ra's died when no dead body was shown. Although death was likely, it was never confirmed, and therefore his status is unknown. --Melty girl 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless some possibility is left open that the character did not die, than the speculation is on the part of those who speculate that he is not dead. The film and the filmmakers at least want us to believe he is dead. The only reason to believe that he could not be dead is the supernatural element from the comic books, which has not been brought into the concept of the films (and I personally highly doubt that they will be). Therefore the only speculating going on is those who are assuming he did not die. The Filmaker 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I didn't say he did not die; I said his status is unknown. Particularly in a fantasy realm like this, anything can happen, so if we don't see his dead body, we cannot know either way. Can you show us evidence from the film that confirms that the filmmakers have told us that he is dead for sure? I don't think it's there one way or the other. I would be more in favor of saying that it is likely that he died, rather than stating he died period, since we never saw that onscreen. --Melty girl 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you find it strangely speculative though to assume that it's possible that every character in a film that likely died should have the status "unknown" tacked on. In the terms of the film's narrative, Ra's Al Ghul is dead. If this were a stand-alone film, with no chance of his character returning, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's what makes this speculation. We have evidence that supports the theory that he is dead, yet no evidence to say that he isn't. What we don't have is conclusive evidence that he is dead. However, in the court of law, I'd say that being inside an L train that is falling apart, plummets and smashes into a building, tumbling over end after end, smashing into cement structuring, only to finally explode into a large fireball....... constitutes as grounds for a KIA, rather than an MIA. The Filmaker 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, as for the fantasy aspect. According to interviews I've read and the article itself, Nolan and the producers main focus was on humanity and realism. So I doubt a supernatural elements will be implemented in the near future. The Filmaker 02:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- But this is NOT a stand-alone film -- it's a film that was always intended to have at least one sequel, if not more. And the part was played by a major star who you never see actually die. And despite it not being a supernatural film, it most certainly is fantasy not realism. Add all that to Wikipedia's verifiability rule, and I think you've got "was likely killed" rather than "killed". --Melty girl 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you could explain how Batman Begins is a fantasy film, than you might have an argument. Please keep in mind that I'm not just referring to the fact that The Lord of the Rings and Chronicles of Narnia are fantasy films. Not just, but that is what you are saying with that statement. However, I don't believe that is actually what you mean. How Batman Begins is a fantasy film in the slightest, I'd like to hear. The Filmaker 21:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- But this is NOT a stand-alone film -- it's a film that was always intended to have at least one sequel, if not more. And the part was played by a major star who you never see actually die. And despite it not being a supernatural film, it most certainly is fantasy not realism. Add all that to Wikipedia's verifiability rule, and I think you've got "was likely killed" rather than "killed". --Melty girl 04:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, as for the fantasy aspect. According to interviews I've read and the article itself, Nolan and the producers main focus was on humanity and realism. So I doubt a supernatural elements will be implemented in the near future. The Filmaker 02:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you find it strangely speculative though to assume that it's possible that every character in a film that likely died should have the status "unknown" tacked on. In the terms of the film's narrative, Ra's Al Ghul is dead. If this were a stand-alone film, with no chance of his character returning, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's what makes this speculation. We have evidence that supports the theory that he is dead, yet no evidence to say that he isn't. What we don't have is conclusive evidence that he is dead. However, in the court of law, I'd say that being inside an L train that is falling apart, plummets and smashes into a building, tumbling over end after end, smashing into cement structuring, only to finally explode into a large fireball....... constitutes as grounds for a KIA, rather than an MIA. The Filmaker 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I didn't say he did not die; I said his status is unknown. Particularly in a fantasy realm like this, anything can happen, so if we don't see his dead body, we cannot know either way. Can you show us evidence from the film that confirms that the filmmakers have told us that he is dead for sure? I don't think it's there one way or the other. I would be more in favor of saying that it is likely that he died, rather than stating he died period, since we never saw that onscreen. --Melty girl 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unless some possibility is left open that the character did not die, than the speculation is on the part of those who speculate that he is not dead. The film and the filmmakers at least want us to believe he is dead. The only reason to believe that he could not be dead is the supernatural element from the comic books, which has not been brought into the concept of the films (and I personally highly doubt that they will be). Therefore the only speculating going on is those who are assuming he did not die. The Filmaker 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree -- it's speculation to assume that Ra's died when no dead body was shown. Although death was likely, it was never confirmed, and therefore his status is unknown. --Melty girl 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- We aren't speculating anything. Officially, his body never was found so we don't know. I don't see a problem mentioning that.Arnabdas 17:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, it's not your place to speculate if he survived. Ra's is dead until he is actually resurrected in a sequel. WP:NOR. Alientraveller 11:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And now you've put a major spoiler in the lead paragraph of the article by identifying Neeson as Ra's, removing my Scarecrow addition. There were no villains in the lead, and I actually wanted to put multiple villains there since that's a unique feature of this film, but I put only The Scarecrow because I couldn't figure out how to add Neeson and still follow the format of "so-and-so as character-x" without revealing the Ra's plot twist right in the lead. Spoilers in the plot section are to be expected, but this seems extreme. Personally, I think it might be best to list Neeson and Murphy and perhaps Watanabe or Wilkinson as "villains" without identifying their characters' names and while noting the multiple villain strategy, but since you'd probably just change it, I'll just mention it here and hope that someone else might be able to implement the idea skillfully. --Melty girl 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to read WP:CENSOR. Understandable if the movie was just released, but this movie has been out for awhile. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CENSOR is about offensive material; this is about a spoiler, and I didn't dispute the appropriateness of spoilers in general. Nonetheless, the idea I've proposed still stands -- mentioning the multiple villains aspect in the lead along with those stars' names. Or at least restoring my addition of The Scarecrow. Any thoughts about that? --Melty girl 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- CENSOR isn't just about offensive material, just the primary reasoning for it. You can also view WP:SPOIL. Wiki is going to have spoilers, and a movie 2 years old hardly qualifies as needing to be protected. I have no problem with Cillian Murphy being added, he was just as much a part of that movie was Neeson was. Neeson was the beginning, Murphy was the middle, they kind of shared the ending together. It isn't like Bryce Dallas Howard in Spidey 3, who only appears for like 15 minutes total. Since Liam Neeson is a significant part of the film, I don't see why he shouldn't be mentioned by his role. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:CENSOR is about offensive material; this is about a spoiler, and I didn't dispute the appropriateness of spoilers in general. Nonetheless, the idea I've proposed still stands -- mentioning the multiple villains aspect in the lead along with those stars' names. Or at least restoring my addition of The Scarecrow. Any thoughts about that? --Melty girl 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to read WP:CENSOR. Understandable if the movie was just released, but this movie has been out for awhile. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- And now you've put a major spoiler in the lead paragraph of the article by identifying Neeson as Ra's, removing my Scarecrow addition. There were no villains in the lead, and I actually wanted to put multiple villains there since that's a unique feature of this film, but I put only The Scarecrow because I couldn't figure out how to add Neeson and still follow the format of "so-and-so as character-x" without revealing the Ra's plot twist right in the lead. Spoilers in the plot section are to be expected, but this seems extreme. Personally, I think it might be best to list Neeson and Murphy and perhaps Watanabe or Wilkinson as "villains" without identifying their characters' names and while noting the multiple villain strategy, but since you'd probably just change it, I'll just mention it here and hope that someone else might be able to implement the idea skillfully. --Melty girl 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:SPOIL -- last time I checked the warning tag issue was disputed. Anyway, that part of my concern aside, I agree with you about Neeson and Murphy. So I'm going to restore my addition of Murphy as The Scarecrow to the lead. We'll see how long it lasts. --Melty girl 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nice resolution of the issue, Alientraveler! Thanks. -- Melty girl 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Alientraveller 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nice resolution of the issue, Alientraveler! Thanks. -- Melty girl 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:SPOIL -- last time I checked the warning tag issue was disputed. Anyway, that part of my concern aside, I agree with you about Neeson and Murphy. So I'm going to restore my addition of Murphy as The Scarecrow to the lead. We'll see how long it lasts. --Melty girl 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Link to Dark Knight Entry
I don't understand why the link to the Dark Knight entry was deleted. It is completely relevent. I agree that not much detail should be given, but there should be mention of it.Arnabdas 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- There are many links to The Dark Knight entry from this article. Not sure what you mean. --Melty girl 02:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made a sequel section that was deleted. I had mentioned DK and also the possibility of Justice League being a future sequel to Begins if Bale reprises his role.Arnabdas 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it would better to include a cited version of that content at Batman film series. Alientraveller 19:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I made a sequel section that was deleted. I had mentioned DK and also the possibility of Justice League being a future sequel to Begins if Bale reprises his role.Arnabdas 19:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tag?
The plot synopsis seems to contain a spoiler, reveling Ducat's dual identity. I see from the archives that there was a spoiler notice in the artice at an earlier time - was there a reason that this was removed? --Badger151 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- WP:SPOIL was revamped. Consensus came that spoiler tags in certain sections, namely those like "plot" and "cast and characters" will obviously have spoilers in them, and since wiki isn't censored it redundant to have them there. I think the general opinion is that a very compelling reason has to be given to include the tag and I don't think that revealing the true identity of a villain in that film that's 2 years old would suffice. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't see Begins until at least a year after it's release. I'd be majorly pissed if reading about it here had spoiled the ending. I don't see how you can argue a spoiler ceases to be a spoiler after a certain period of time, unless it's something like "I am your father" that's pretty much known to the English-speaking world. Optimus Sledge 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well go show your opinion elsewhere. Fact is, "Plot" sounds like it will give the game away. Alientraveller 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you be reading an article on a film you had not seen, and then complain about being spoiled? What do you think the article was going to talk about? It isn't like Ducard's identity is some big plot event in the film, it's simply a "nope, sorry, I'm this other guy you thought you killed". The movie is about Batman, not Ducard. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- People, politeness and respect go a long way -- in fact, I believe it's Wiki policy. And be honest: WP:SPOIL is disputed. I'm not pro-spoiler tag, but at least be honest and respectful. And while it might be frustrating to deal with the spoiler topic repeatedly, no one should be shocked that people are still surprised by spoilers on Wiki; everywhere else on the web protects for them. The issue isn't contentious for nothing. --Melty girl 19:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you be reading an article on a film you had not seen, and then complain about being spoiled? What do you think the article was going to talk about? It isn't like Ducard's identity is some big plot event in the film, it's simply a "nope, sorry, I'm this other guy you thought you killed". The movie is about Batman, not Ducard. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well go show your opinion elsewhere. Fact is, "Plot" sounds like it will give the game away. Alientraveller 19:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- That makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't see Begins until at least a year after it's release. I'd be majorly pissed if reading about it here had spoiled the ending. I don't see how you can argue a spoiler ceases to be a spoiler after a certain period of time, unless it's something like "I am your father" that's pretty much known to the English-speaking world. Optimus Sledge 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) How about a compromise? Character details will clearly fall under Cast, and the lead paragraph can be purged of any mention of the specific characters that are portrayed, with the exception of Batman. To find out the roles that are portrayed, a reader can venture to the Cast section to find out the details. I don't think that the mention of Ra's Al Ghul is completely spoiler-ish, but I do think that it serves as part of a turning point in the film that does not need mention in the lead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're losing sight of what "plot" is supposed to be. Surely it's an overview of the film, not a blow-by-blow account of everything that happens? And exactly how is it a bad thing to have a warning that a piece of text contains a spoiler? Optimus Sledge 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Plot summaries are supposed to be written in a manner in which they can back the encyclopedic, real-world context of the film article. I don't think that Batman Begins has the best plot summary out there, but just because it's a summary doesn't mean that you can hide spoilers. If you read the Plot section, you'll realize that it's not a blow-by-blow account; it tries to explain events as succinctly as possible. If it can be done further, than it can be done. However, the revelation of Ra's Al Ghul is part of a film's turning point, so it's not something to actively avoid mentioning. Furthermore, there has already been long, long discussions about the application of the spoiler tag, and the verdict is that if the section is called Plot, then obviously plot details will follow. What else is to be expected in such a section, especially if there is more than a brief paragraph about the film's story? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolute: The Long Halloween
A request to anyone who can use Chris Nolan's foreword to this new edition of The Long Halloween to cite how Harvey Dent was originally going to appear in Batman Begins. Alientraveller 20:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ayn Rand
Various websites have attempted to draw a connection between this film and the philosophy of Objectivism (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100370.html?sub=AR, http://bncreitz.blogspot.com/2005/12/speaking-of-ayn-rand.html, http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2389). Is there any concrete proof that Chistopher Nolan explicitly held these views, or that the themes in this movie run parallel with Ayn Rand's writings, or this just their personal interpretation? 24.24.90.148 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary to prove that Nolan intended to create an objectivism theme in his movie, but that reliable sources that noted that theme. This would mean that others are specifically stating such, and not us saying "look at Ayn Rand's writings, and now look at the film." Someone would have to do the comparison for us. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Batsuit image
I was wondering, does anyone think this image of Bale in the suit works better than the image being used currently? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the new image would work better. The current one doesn't have the best lighting to show the Batsuit in a detailed manner. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I assume no one opposes. ColdFusion650 (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Goofs/mistakes section?
Why is this in the article? Wouldn't this be considered nothing more than trivia? It's poorly written and the single citation is from IMDb, not a good reference. I'm removing it for now. QuasiAbstract (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it was something recently added. As such, so called goofs are common and always a user's opinion. Alientraveller (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes
The citation for 'Cream of the Crop' is a broken link. The 'Top Critics' average is now 82%, significantly higher than the 63% claimed in the article.
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_begins/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.66.23 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know what you're looking at, but Top Critics reads 63%. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)