How many times have you been wrong or misremembered something about Batman, recently? I've lost count. True True False. No one else here believes that but you. Is it really possible that none of us know what we're talking about and that you somehow know more about the bat-characters than the rest of us? Isn't it more likely that you're once again misinterpreting things? A hallucination gave a literal answer? It's like a dream, it will tell you whatever you want or expect it to say. Ra's mentions immortality in Begins, so it makes sense for the hallucination to bring it up once again. You know what? You should just ask Nolan. Seriously, he got sick of everyone asking what really happened at the end of Inception and finally came out with what actually happened. I won't spoil it for those who prefer one possibility over the other, but it's out there...
How do you do research on a planet you've never been to before? Lets put it this way. We've discovered an Earth-like planet in another galaxy near ours. We've never traveled that far though so how would our scientists do any research it when we've only just discovered it? Or here's another one for you. Kal-El seems to age about 4 years in the time he left Krypton and landed on Earth. His ship didn't even have any propulsion system. It looked more as if he was drifting aimlessly threw space with no food or drink. If he arrived on Earth at all he'd be dead. The fortress of Solitude kinda furthers the field of knowing things that shouldn't be known sense it's mere existence is impossible. Jor-El's voice is meant to be a recording but it's able to respond to Clark's questions as if he were actually there talking to him. This kinda thing would take YEARS to set up so that there's a recording designed to play in response to any possible question he might ask. In order for him to set in up in only months he's have to be psychic and only need to record the answers to questions he know's Clark will ask before he does. Also he says that Clark is 18 right when he first enters the FoS which is true so he also knew exactly how many years it would take for the Fortress to be built. And to add to the things that don't make any sense. Jor-El says Krypton was destroyed thousands of years ago. Time doesn't work that way. Years are measured by how many times a planet passes around the son. This would mean that every year, or orbit of our son, Krypton has orbited their son at least 56 times or more, meaning 1 Earth Year = 56 Krypton years. So a Kryptonian would have a birthday every 6 Earth days or less. So Clark's actual age would be at least 1008. None of this makes any sense for 2 reasons. 1. Time is relative to where you are. This means even if Krypton was traveling threw time at a faster rate than Earth it still would of been destroyed only 18 years ago, not thousands of years ago because time is relative to Clark being on Earth. For it to be destroyed thousands of years ago Clark never would have been born in the first place. 2. Kryptonians seem to age slower than humans which should mean that Earth is traveling faster around our son not the other way around. Clark is not over 1000 years old so by Kryptonian standards he should actually be YOUNGER than 18. You've done this twice now and at first I thought you were talking about a totally different character. His name is Ra's not Raiji or Raij. Last time you called him Raij I thought you were talking about the old man who posed as Ra's for the first part of Begins. And this isn't really a spelling thing, I'm getting the impression that you actually don't even know what his name is. I'd over look it if it was simply spelled wrong because Ra's al Ghul is spelled nothing like it sounds and even spell check tells me it's wrong. Raiji looks like you're trying a spell a totally different name. If you were going to spell it wrong I'd expect to see something that at least looks like the way it's pronounced, Raz or Raws. ' Where the frick do you get Raiji from?
SaberPrime now you're just nitpicking seriously the movie is about a super powered alien who looks exactly like a human fighting criminals and other aliens in bright red&blue tights realistic is far from what Supes is and every time they try to make it more realistic it sucks.
How does that make a difference. Are you claiming I'm remembering it wrong or just that I'm interpreting it differently? Cause there is a difference. Spoiler I said that you didn't know anything about the character because you're arguing against the original concept of who the character was in the first place. If you know that he's immortal in the comics and the cartoon than why is so hard to believe that he was immortal in the movie? That's something I would expect someone who doesn't know the source material to say. And the "Because Nolan took a more realistic approach to the movie so the existence of an immortal would be stupid" reasoning is your opinion not a fact. Besides what about Nolan's version of Bane? He took a character that was already based in reality and changed him into something totally fake. Bane's original mask is worn in real life by Mexican luchadores. Bane's mask for the Nolan film is something totally made up for the movie. Bane's original power source, Venom, has a real life counterpart called steroids. Bane's power source in the Nolan film is something totally made up for the movie. Bane's original design has an actual pumping mechanism to make it work. Bane's design in the Nolan film would not function in real life. The existence of an immortal is not the most unbelievable thing in the Nolan films, in my opinion. I don't remember him mentioning immortality in Begins and bringing that up if he did doesn't help your argument any. Last time I saw Begins was when Dark Knight came out on DVD, I watched them back to back. I'll probably do the same thing when I get Dark Knight Rises on DVD. And it's not a hallucination. Someone mentioned it was a metaphor to his legacy. OK if it's a metaphor then why did he say it in response to Bruce's shock that he was still alive? How does a metaphor make any sense in that sense in that scene? In fact an actual metaphor would be to say that "Life goes on threw our children" rather than "I'm immortal!" By the way, there's a reason I'm putting spoiler tags over all this... at least while it's still in theaters some people may not have seen it yet.
No no no, I'm not nit picking. That's what YOU just did, that's nit picking. There's a big difference between pointing out obvious flaws in the writing and simply saying "Aliens aren't real". And every time they make it more realistic, it's AWESOME. Seriously though it's a difference of "I'm going to read this book that was published 30 years ago and learn everything there is to know about an alien planet that no one knew existed till today" vs. "I just happen to have this rock on me and it seems to be making you week. You're my enemy so here, you can keep it." Or better yet, as far as I know this was done first in Smallville, someone who learned of his weakness by seeing him actually being exposed to it and not reading it out of a book that shouldn't exist, carved bullets made of Kryptonite and shot him with it. That's more realistic than "lets just put this rock on his chest and leave him till someone comes along and throws him away." Why is it that it took 58 years from the first Superman comic for someone to think of making Kryptonite bullets? That's the suspension of disbelieve at work. Yeah Krypton isn't real but the story is about the last son of Krypton. You can't write an alien story with no aliens in it. You can however write believable story about aliens as long as all the Earth based elements of the story are grounded in reality, meaning that there can't be a book published about Krypton when no one even knew it existed.
I'm saying that you've been making false statements lately. Some were because you misremembered something (B:TAS Jonah Hex and Ra's al Ghul) and now you have misinterpreted this scene in Rises. All of the Bat-characters have gone through various, different interpretations. Sometimes Batman is the Grim Dark Knight, other times he can be the Campy Caped Crusader. Sometimes he's a stern loner and then he's part of the Dynamic Duo. Characters change over time, and Ra's al Ghul has not been portrayed the exact same way in every comic or animated series he has been in. Lets come back to this... Uh, I never said that if Nolan went with the immortal approach it would be stupid. I'm just saying he decided to not go with that approach. I love that Ra's al Ghul is immortal in the comics and in B:TAS, but he's not naturally immortal. He needs to use his Lazarus pits to rejuvenate his body, constantly. The Lazarus pits have not been acknowledged in Nolan's movies, so I have no reason to believe they exist or that Ra's uses them to prolong life. This is amazing. I don't know how you can acknowledge that Nolan made many changes to Bane (No Venom, no luchadore mask), but you think Nolan stuck to Ra's comicbook origins. Why would he change Bane but not Ra's? We know he's already made departures concerning race. Bane, at the very least, is supposed to be half-hispanic and half English because of his (retcon) father Sir Edmund Dorrance, aka King Snake. Ra's was described as being asian/middle eastern and Liam Neeson obviously is not. If they were going to stick to the comic origins completely, why wouldn't they have done this? Also, Henri Ducard and Ra's al Ghul are two completely different characters in the comics, and yet, they are the same (either real name or alias) in Batman Begins. Only Ducard had a hand in training Pre-Batman Bruce in the comics, Ra's al Ghul had nothing to do with Bruce's training. Again, another change that was made for Ra's al Ghul in Nolan's movies. It's not my fault you don't remember, but you could ask anyone else in this thread who does remember Begins, and they'll confirm it. It can be a metaphor for us, the audience, while being a hallucination to Bruce.
Except that interpretation kinda comes with any fiction. That's kinda the whole point. Most stories are written so that everyone who reads them or in this cases watches them, can have their own interpretation of what's going on. Only the author really knows what he or she intended. It's not really a misinterpretation so much as both versions are equally possible. However that being said Spoiler I would think that anyone familiar with the source material would take it literally and it was done in a way that looked like an illusion for people being introduced to this character for the first time. It's actually a rather brilliant way to satisfy both the long time fans and the general movie goers at the same time. True but in this case there's nothing directly stating what the difference is and Spoiler I think it's kinda odd to cast an actor who looks as if the character was ripped straight out of the source material and then change his origins. Plus I think it would be stupid to include the dialog about immortality if it wasn't a direct reference to his background in the source material. Ra's al Ghul is the most accurately portrayed villain in any Batman movie. Why argue for the existence of a character change that wasn't even there? Sorry that was someone else in the thread who said that. Spoiler That's all true however just because they don't mention the Lazarus pits doesn't mean they don't exist. They don't mention the Lazarus Pits in every episode of cartoons he appears in but that doesn't change the fact that they still exist. Again, I see it as a rather brilliant way to please both the long time fans and the general movie goers at the same time. They don't need to mention the Lazarus Pits because it has nothing to do with the current plot and bringing it up would just confuse the general movie goers. Long time fans however could just assume that they exist by his mere existence. Also while you admitted yourself that they often change characters. What if the change wasn't about him being mortal but the possibility that movie Ra's is just naturally immortal as you put it? All three versions are equally possible sense nothing in the movies prevents them from being so. Basically meaning that there are three possible ways to interpret the same scene. I'm simply choosing to go with the one that makes the most sense to me, with is that he's immortal. If I didn't know the character I'd interpret it as he's naturally immortal but sense I do know the character I'm assuming that Talia had his body brought to a Lazarus Pit where he was able to be resurrected after his apparent death in Begins. It's not wrong, just different. I don't know. I was wandering the same thing. I think Batman Begins was the best of the 3 movies because it stuck close to the source material. He didn't make changes just to make changes like so many other comic book movies. I was rather disappointed when Dark Knight came out and he screwed up the Joker. Two-Face was screwed up in a way too but not as badly as the Joker. On the plus side he still had his signature coin but the screwed up part is that he didn't even have multiple personality disorder. He also wasn't friends with Bruce Wayne. Batman Forever got Harvey/Two-Face right in terms of his origins but screwed up his appearance. And I'm color blind so it's pretty bad when even I know that his face is the wrong color. On the plus side, Nolan's Two-face is also screwed up but in a good way. The change wasn't random and stupid, it made him look like an actual burn victim. Even though I don't like the other changes that were made to Two-Face I really do like the realism they put into his facial scars. Dark Knight Rises strayed even further from the source material but still managed to be a good enough movie that I have a difficult time justify my nerd rage over the changes. Hell I like the way Two-Face looks so much it was difficult to even complain about that. Spoiler That being said regardless of Ra's immortality status, that doesn't really effect my opinion of the movies. It's a rather minor detail that I'm just glad they even vaguely made a reference to. I never could place his accent in the movie but in Batman the animated series Bane seemed to speak in a Russian accent which I always thought was weird with the Mexican mask. I've never been too clear what his nationality is actually suppose to be. Where did you get half Hispanic and half English from? Also Ra's in the movies appears to be from the same desert area as in the cartoons. He first met Bruce there and trained him there. And I've never seen him portrayed as being Asian. The old man in begins pretending to be Ra's looked like he was Asian but the key word there is PRETENDING. That wasn't actually him. Not really a change. I mean it's possible Henri Ducard actually existed and Ra's just used his name. I mean the old man was using his name so it's not unreasonable that he was using another character's name. Maybe the old man was Henri Ducard? I haven't seen Begins in a while, when they revealed who Ra's really was did they ever say who the guy was that was posing as Ra's really was? It's kinda annoying to just call him the fake Ra's or old man all the time but I don't think he was ever named. Spoiler That would be breaking the 4th wall. I mean you're suggesting that he was talking to the audience rather than to Bruce. He's not Deadpool.
You are wrong again. Ra's al Ghul is not immortal. Not in the comics, not in the cartoon and not in the movies. His longevity and resurrections have all been through the use of Lazarus Pits. Anyone can use them as long as they are of poor health or deceased. With out them Ra's would have a normal life span like any other human. I would love to see how your mind views a show like Dexter or Six Feet Under
Absolutely wrong. Lois wrote down everything he told her. And he did not give a vague location of Krypton's galaxy. He named the specific galaxy and Lex was looking up the location as the galaxy was known to science. Thus, Luthor went to a book of known galaxies and star formations. As for your argument of the time issue, Jor-El answered that in his pre-recorded dialogue while Clark was en route to Earth:
sorry, my keyboard I am getting used to mistakes will be made. I am noticing I am spelling the names wrong. And I have noticed I am doubling up on the names, plus I am sitting well away from the screen, so I am not really looking sometimes when I press send. Next time I will make sure mistakes will not be made. I will edit some of my posts now. But I will admit I have got the names wrong, big rookie mistake there. Sorry PPL for the mistakes, I do have a big habit of really being lazy with the posts
I like how you call me wrong and then prove me right. Did you ever read my last post? Spoiler I never claimed Ra's was naturally immortal in the comics or the cartoons. I simply claimed he was immortal which threw the use of the Lazarus Pits, HE IS. I also basically said that Ra's in the movie said matter of factly that he was immortal. Here lets make this simple. Instead of "we're having an argument about weather or not Ra's is immortal" lets change it up to "we're having an argument about weather or not Ra's said he was immortal" You're arguing that he did say it but it was a metaphor. My argument is that the metaphor doesn't make any sense. In relevance to the argument that we're actually having you're basically agreeing with me about the fact that he did say it but disagreeing me about the meaning behind it. Essentially we would actually have to ask Nolan which one of us is right or this argument could go on forever sense there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other. During the interview yeah, but that doesn't mean she wrote everything in the paper. You know they edit out a lot of stuff in interviews if it runs too long right? Plus the interview is just question and answer. Lois wrote an article about what she thinks of him as a person. That's evident by what Lex actually read vs. the questions she was asking him the night before. So what, not only do I have to teach you what good writing is but now I have to explain how news papers work? Of course I've never worked in a news paper the extent of what I know is pretty much everything I already said. Writer interviews person. Writes down what they say. Writer writes article about person, MAYBE including SOME but not all of the interview questions. Editor reads the article to fix Lois' famously bad spelling and make sure it's actually long enough or short enough, whatever the case may be, to actually be published. And some other stuff happens that I'm not so sure about. MOVING ON... No he didn't. Actually he didn't even point to where it might be. (The one time I remember something wrong that doesn't work against me.) interview01 copy - YouTube He named Krypton and that was it. Then she asks him if he likes Pink referring to the color of her underwear. And no, his galaxy was not known to science. That's the entire point. No one knew about Krypton till the day the news paper published about Superman and yet there were books published about it. Thus Lex could not have possibly looked up that information. And as to your other statement. He never said when he arrived on Earth. He never even said his exact age. He said he was over 21 and then Lois said, "Oh I see so you don't want anyone to know." Hooray for YouTube. You mean the dialog that didn't make any sense. Yeah I know I just got threw talking about it. lol
To me it goes : The Dark Knight Rises The Dark Knight Batman Batman Returns Batman Forever Batman (1966) Batman Begins Batman and Robin
