• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Cracked DISEMBOWELS the narrative foundation of Batman Begins

Imagine if he just donated to the city so they could hire more cops?

From what I gathered after reading years of Batman comics and graphics novels is that Gotham itself is such a crime ridden and corruption entangled city, it really would be unproductive to dump money into the problem. Corruption goes to the highest levels there and the donated money would most probably go to the criminals anyways.

This hits my point home that the police were so corrupt or just that Bruce felt the need to step in and fill the void, becoming the defacto sheriff. Ofcourse there's Jim Gordon who does all the legal things and then Batman who works outside of the law with his techniques to do whatever Gordon can't. He has the money, the resources, if he gives money directly it will just go to the pockets of Gotham's finest and the gangs.Any citizen has the right to step in if the government that is supposed to protect them fails.
 
Disembowels? Really? Cracked has too much influence or credibility. I used to love those guys, but now they're reaching and grasping at straws. Time to end that site.
 
Disembowels? Really? Cracked has too much influence or credibility. I used to love those guys, but now they're reaching and grasping at straws. Time to end that site.

It depends on the writer of the article, they still manage to pull off a good one from time to time.

For what it's worth the guy in the linked article is "right" that Bruce Wayne doesn't exactly have the most stable of paternal history as much as Alfred loved him and cared for him but it's not the movies fault and more of just how the character is. He's fucked up in the head. Is that Alfred's fault? Maybe. But I'd also blame the fact his parents were murdered right in front of him and his deep-need to clean up the city of it's crime-ridden shitholiness.

But that article has many other flaws in it and, certainly, isn't the finest example from Cracked.
 
so one thing i hate when people nitpick things, is the assumption that if it didnt happen on screen, or isnt mentioned on screen, it didnt happen.

so because we never see Alfred have the conversation the writer wanted, surely it didnt happen. "but that is crucial to the story" you might say... but it isnt. alfred having that talk wouldnt change a damn thing because the movie is Batman, and at some point we need a guy to dress up like a giant bat and fight crime.

how much the death of the parents weighs on batman is debatable... the darker versions seem to use it a lot. the lighter versions (Adam West, Super Friends, etc.) don't seem to dwell on it at all.
 
so one thing i hate when people nitpick things, is the assumption that if it didnt happen on screen, or isnt mentioned on screen, it didnt happen.

so because we never see Alfred have the conversation the writer wanted, surely it didnt happen. "but that is crucial to the story" you might say... but it isnt. alfred having that talk wouldnt change a damn thing because the movie is Batman, and at some point we need a guy to dress up like a giant bat and fight crime.
The movie is Batman Begins. As I said earlier, such a conversation would indeed have nothing to do with the story of TDK or an episode of the Adam West Batman. But when, unlike TDK, Bruce Wayne is the central figure of the movie, followed in nearly every scene as he decides to become Batman, such a talk would indeed have gone a long way towards grounding the character.

You seem to take the position that BB Bruce has a destiny to become Batman because that's how he's always been written. Fine. But invoking cosmic destiny isn't a very grounded move, and lest we forget, Nolan was obsessed with grounding the movie. NY Magazine:

Why does Batman ride the ’mobile over police cars, crushing them? You say I’m carping; I quote Goyer in the press notes: “One of Chris’s mantras was . . . ‘It has to be real.’”

So to Nolan, in this particular movie, "realism" means a drab, tank-like Batmobile, an architecturally mundane Gotham, mangled cop cars... and Bruce becoming Batman in large part for reasons we, to paraphrase you, must assume happen off screen.

Just wanted to be clear. :p
 
^ "Real" in that context obviously means "as realistic as possible while remaining within the basic confines of the established lore." Which means you're still going to ultimately arrive at the inherently ridiculous notion of a guy dressing up as a bat fighting costumed supervillians with elaborate schemes, but wherever possible you should try to limit yourself to things that - though extremely unlikely - are within the realm of possibility. If you want a "real" take on vigilantism, watch a documentary on Bernhard Goetz.

Besides which, I don't see what being real or not has to do with Alfred's fitness as a legal guardian to Bruce. There's plenty of realness to people being exploited or mistreated by their foster parents if that's what you really believe Alfred did.
 
BTW, wasn't it stated, or strongly implied, that Alfred was in on it with Bruce and knew he was alive the whole time?
 
an architecturally mundane Gotham

My understanding is that it was mainly Chicago and London that stood-in for Gotham. And I've never heard either of those cities described as "architecturally mundane." :wtf:
Your "understanding is"... so, in other words, you don't know for sure/didn't recognize Chicago or London while watching the movie, thereby suggesting that Nolan shot fairly nondescript urban locations in those two cities. And yet I'm the idiot for supposedly calling those two actual places, which we barely saw in the movie if at all, "architecturally mundane".

Riiiiiiggght
. :rommie:
 
an architecturally mundane Gotham

My understanding is that it was mainly Chicago and London that stood-in for Gotham. And I've never heard either of those cities described as "architecturally mundane." :wtf:

They're architecturally mundane compared to how Gotham looks in the comics and looks in the previous batch of movies, with a much more comic-book like look.
 
T
hey're architecturally mundane compared to how Gotham looks in the comics and looks in the previous batch of movies, with a much more comic-book like look.

Isn't that a chicken and egg thing? I remember comics appearing using the styling of the Burton Movies *after* they came out but before then, it was simply a generic city (Well unless you want to go back to the 1950s and the Batman Lighthouse...).
 
an architecturally mundane Gotham

My understanding is that it was mainly Chicago and London that stood-in for Gotham. And I've never heard either of those cities described as "architecturally mundane." :wtf:

They're architecturally mundane compared to how Gotham looks in the comics and looks in the previous batch of movies, with a much more comic-book like look.

And to me, especially in the first two it also had very a studio backlot look the cityscape.
 
an architecturally mundane Gotham

My understanding is that it was mainly Chicago and London that stood-in for Gotham. And I've never heard either of those cities described as "architecturally mundane."
Your "understanding is"... so, in other words, you don't know for sure/didn't recognize Chicago or London while watching the movie, thereby suggesting that Nolan shot fairly nondescript urban locations in those two cities. And yet I'm the idiot for supposedly calling those two actual places, which we barely saw in the movie if at all, "architecturally mundane".

Riiiiiiggght.

You're certainly not an idiot (nor did anyone call you one), but you can be very smug towards people who disagree with you sometimes, and often for no justifiable reason, like now. You often seem to stake out an unpopular opinion (which is fine) but then look down on any one who questions your reasoning, even if they do so politely.

I'm sure he said "my understanding is" in case there were more locations used besides Chicago and London (which there were), but he's absolutely right that those were the two primary filming locations, and there are several architecturally distinctive or recognizable features from both cities and others nearby in 'Batman Begins' (and 'TDK,' but I won't get into that too much):

Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire, England is Wayne Manor, which was in one of your favorite movie series in 'The Mummy Returns' as the O'Connell's mansion. It's also in 'Eyes Wide Shut' (the orgy house) and 'Brazil':



Wayne Tower was the Chicago Board of Trade Building, which was the tallest building in Chicago from 1930-65, and was the site of the trading floor scenes in 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off':



Coming off the Board of Trade Building, the ominous LaSalle Street "Canyon" was used in both Batman films, as well as 'Road to Perdition,' 'The Untouchables,' and 'Public Enemies':



The opera house where Bruce's parents were murdered after leaving the show is Garrick Theater in London, financed by W.S. Gilbert of Gilbert & Sullivan:



35 East Wacker or the Jewelers' Building is Gotham's Courthouse:



The Port of Gotham was the Tilbury Port in Essex, England, which also doubled as Venice in 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade':



The exterior of the restaurant Bruce bought was CityPoint in London, which also appeared in '28 Days Later':



Seen in the foreground is the Franklin Street Bridge, which is the one the Tumbler jumps to get to The Narrows. To the right, the distinctive twin condominium towers of Marina City were also visible in the film. They're in pretty much every establishing shot of Chicago on film ever:



The foreboding National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) in London was Arkham Asylum:



And finally there's Lower Wacker Drive, which was featured prominently in the chase scenes involving the Tumbler in both films:



So, yeah, they didn't use impossibly high poorly constructed Gothic wood and stone mega-skyscrapers like Burton's Gotham, but I'd hardly call it architecturally mundane and unrecognizable.
 
[Sideshow Bob]
No, I don't like that "bowel" thing there. GUT him.
[/Sideshow Bob]

Sorry, couldn't help myself.
 
I don't want to go all Szasz here right off the bat, but we're all leaping to the conclusion that Batman is insane [and thus that Cracked's analysis is sound] a bit too easily.

I think the rightness or wrongness of vigilantism is dependent on context. That means that turning to it can't be automatically described as per se evidence of insanity.

I can think of any number of reasons why a vigilante in an American context might be considered insane, but many of them relate to practicalities that the writers of the comics and the films are free to evade. When you can make what Batman does work just by writing the plot that way, he's no longer insane. Make him delusional about his own capabilities, make him wipe out innocents, make the system of due process in his imaginary city more effective and more just than his own approach - and then he's insane. But the writers do the opposite.
 
I'm sure he said "my understanding is" in case there were more locations used besides Chicago and London (which there were), but he's absolutely right that those were the two primary filming locations, and there are several architecturally distinctive or recognizable features from both cities and others nearby in 'Batman Begins' (and 'TDK,' but I won't get into that too much):

Yup. You got what I was trying to say.

I live in Chicago, and worked a block south of the river on Michigan Ave today. I've got a pretty good idea of where the Chicago scenes were shot.

And I have to say that of all the complaints I've heard about Chicago over the years, boring architecture has never been mentioned.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top