|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 19, 2017 1:42:20 GMT
Been looking for new shows to watch so I've been watching Gotham on the side. Personally, it's kinda out of whack introducing all these Batman villains early before Bruce became Batman. I do like Catwoman(girl/Selina) and Penguin and they give good performances and obviously, the intentions of the series is to see them grow into the known characters we know them in the comics (probably by season 20 something, with Bruce finally starting out as Batman). I actually like that idea and critics are saying these are the definite portrayal of both those characters respectively. However what I really liked was Thomas and Martha Wayne's death.
I think it was definitely the best on-screen portrayal of it. What it does right is showing Thomas, for the most part, is being smart to protect his family. Obviously, the circumstances of why they died in all the versions are different (and the question of whether the criminal intentionally planned on killing them or not) but in the '89 version, it didn't bother me that it was the Joker who killed them or that there was a second robber, but I didn't like was that after the second robber took Martha's pearls, Thomas kinda neglected Bruce's own safety and probably even Martha's by just lunging to get the pearls back. He seemed to care more about the pearls.
I didn't have a huge problem with the Nolan version, which I liked better than the '89. And I like how Joe Chill was just being this common lone-ass criminal looking for money, but while Thomas did give his wallet, he still jumped in front of Martha when he demanded the pearls even though he was willing to give him his wallet. It's a minor thing but I do like Bruce's reaction to it.
The Wayne's death in BvS didn't work because simply Thomas got him and Martha killed. I know it's an adaption of The Dark Knight Returns where Thomas did try to attack the gunman, but Miller really doesn't understand Batman when he did that. And Snyder only did it because it's apparently "edgy and cool" because that's his motif with the film. And two reasons why it doesn't work. One, a father would never put his family, especially his child at risk like that and would just give whatever the burglar wants. But also, Snyder and Miller really undermine Batman's main motive for becoming Batman because his parents are the very kind of people he wants to protect, the defenseless who just want to live their life. And for you guys on here, put your "man" ego aside for a moment, it's not manly/badass trying to disarm a gunman, especially if it's going to put your own child at risk. It's just reckless and stupid. A real man could bear to sacrifice a few materialistic belongings just try to keep his family safe. Plus, the whole slo-mo thing, especially with the pearls was just super pretentious and did not work. I understand Snyder was trying to create some interesting visual imagery, but it didn't work. And the whole thing with the gun slide getting caught on pearls was just ridiculous, but you clearly see Martha get shot in the face but when we see her body, there's no whole in her face or blood. But the whole scene though was just to set up the "Martha" thing at the end. It just didn't work.
In Gotham though, Martha willingly gives her pearls and Thomas doesn't do anything to stop it or get 'em back. He's even reassuring Bruce as well. It just works and feels like what a mother and father would really do to protect their child. And the scream at the end is what really sells it!
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 19, 2017 2:35:18 GMT
a father would never put his family, especially his child at risk like that and would just give whatever the burglar wants. it's not manly/badass trying to disarm a gunman, especially if it's going to put your own child at risk. The burglar wasn't wearing a mask so they could see his face. Thomas Wayne knew the burglar wasn't going to let them live because they could identify him. So Thomas Wayne tried to get the jump on the burglar first. the whole thing with the gun slide getting caught on pearls was just ridiculous, but you clearly see Martha get shot in the face but when we see her body, there's no whole in her face or blood. There's no blood or gunshot wound on her face because she wasn't shot in the face. You need to watch it more carefully. It's in slow motion so it shouldn't be that hard to see. When the burglar pulls the trigger, the gun is pointed at a downward angle. So she was shot in the chest and not the face.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 19, 2017 3:03:07 GMT
"Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 3:06:51 GMT
Batman Begins.
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Oct 19, 2017 3:12:58 GMT
a father would never put his family, especially his child at risk like that and would just give whatever the burglar wants. it's not manly/badass trying to disarm a gunman, especially if it's going to put your own child at risk. The burglar wasn't wearing a mask so they could see his face. Thomas Wayne knew the burglar wasn't going to let them live because they could identify him. So Thomas Wayne tried to get the jump on the burglar first. the whole thing with the gun slide getting caught on pearls was just ridiculous, but you clearly see Martha get shot in the face but when we see her body, there's no whole in her face or blood. There's no blood or gunshot wound on her face because she wasn't shot in the face. You need to watch it more carefully. It's in slow motion so it shouldn't be that hard to see. When the burglar pulls the trigger, the gun is pointed at a downward angle. So she was shot in the chest and not the face. There's no real clear interpretation of whether the burglar intended to kill them or not, whether it was just a simple robbery or assassination attempt. In the Nolan version, Joe Chill wasn't wearing a mask and it was clearly an accident on his part with the gun going off when Thomas got in the way. That's just your speculation because he wasn't wearing a mask, but also, why wouldn't he kill Bruce then? Again, Miller and Snyder completely undermine Bruce's motive for becoming Batman by making Thomas the aggressor. And I did just watch it again, he's clearly pointing it at Martha's neck/face region. The whole angle shot was just for a sake of a visual imagery of the pearls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 17:25:01 GMT
Batman Begins
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 19, 2017 23:06:10 GMT
Batman Begins and honestly, Batman versus Superman.
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 25, 2017 20:49:20 GMT
IMO the best is to NOT show it, because no depiction will ever properly capture how horrible it would really be. Better to show us its effect on Bruce through his emotions. But, I guess I liked Batman Begins best.
|
|
gromel
Sophomore
@gromel
Posts: 279
Likes: 119
|
Post by gromel on Oct 28, 2017 17:12:25 GMT
Burton. In all the comic versions Thomas gets physical with the gunman in some way, saying "don't you lay a hand on my wife". Here he didn't look so reckless as to try to punch him but he acts enough that he's not passive. Just the right amount of slo-mo. Nolan's, while realistic in that it happened in a blink of an eye, was boring and banal. Which is again realistic, I guess, but comic books are dramatic, dammit.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Oct 31, 2017 19:31:03 GMT
My favorite was in Tim Burton's Batman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2017 20:58:43 GMT
There's no evidence in the film that this dude was trying to rob them. We never see him ask for any money, nor does he attempt to take Martha's pearls before running off. As is, this looks like a straight-up hit on the Waynes. But why? Could be a variety of reasons. Maybe Dr. Thomas Wayne failed to save that dude's wife or child at the hospital. Could be anything like that. Or maybe he was an Islamic terrorist. We don't know.
Batman himself even says that his parents died "for no reason at all" when fighting Superman. So they didn't die for being stupid. That's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 1, 2017 2:55:17 GMT
There's no evidence in the film that this dude was trying to rob them. We never see him ask for any money, nor does he attempt to take Martha's pearls before running off. As is, this looks like a straight-up hit on the Waynes. But why? Could be a variety of reasons. In the comics, Thomas Wayne was supposed to be a witness against a mob boss. The mob boss hired Joe Chill to kill Thomas and Martha Wayne and make it look like a robbery and was specifically told to let Bruce Wayne live so that Bruce could tell the cops it was a robbery. So that answers the question that some MCU fan had above about why the robber let Bruce Wayne live.
|
|
syafiqjabar
Sophomore
@syafiqjabar
Posts: 185
Likes: 33
|
Post by syafiqjabar on Nov 1, 2017 11:32:44 GMT
Been looking for new shows to watch so I've been watching Gotham on the side. Personally, it's kinda out of whack introducing all these Batman villains early before Bruce became Batman. I do like Catwoman(girl/Selina) and Penguin and they give good performances and obviously, the intentions of the series is to see them grow into the known characters we know them in the comics (probably by season 20 something, with Bruce finally starting out as Batman). I actually like that idea and critics are saying these are the definite portrayal of both those characters respectively. However what I really liked was Thomas and Martha Wayne's death. I think it was definitely the best on-screen portrayal of it. What it does right is showing Thomas, for the most part, is being smart to protect his family. Obviously, the circumstances of why they died in all the versions are different (and the question of whether the criminal intentionally planned on killing them or not) but in the '89 version, it didn't bother me that it was the Joker who killed them or that there was a second robber, but I didn't like was that after the second robber took Martha's pearls, Thomas kinda neglected Bruce's own safety and probably even Martha's by just lunging to get the pearls back. He seemed to care more about the pearls. I didn't have a huge problem with the Nolan version, which I liked better than the '89. And I like how Joe Chill was just being this common lone-ass criminal looking for money, but while Thomas did give his wallet, he still jumped in front of Martha when he demanded the pearls even though he was willing to give him his wallet. It's a minor thing but I do like Bruce's reaction to it. The Wayne's death in BvS didn't work because simply Thomas got him and Martha killed. I know it's an adaption of The Dark Knight Returns where Thomas did try to attack the gunman, but Miller really doesn't understand Batman when he did that. And Snyder only did it because it's apparently "edgy and cool" because that's his motif with the film. And two reasons why it doesn't work. One, a father would never put his family, especially his child at risk like that and would just give whatever the burglar wants. But also, Snyder and Miller really undermine Batman's main motive for becoming Batman because his parents are the very kind of people he wants to protect, the defenseless who just want to live their life. And for you guys on here, put your "man" ego aside for a moment, it's not manly/badass trying to disarm a gunman, especially if it's going to put your own child at risk. It's just reckless and stupid. A real man could bear to sacrifice a few materialistic belongings just try to keep his family safe. Plus, the whole slo-mo thing, especially with the pearls was just super pretentious and did not work. I understand Snyder was trying to create some interesting visual imagery, but it didn't work. And the whole thing with the gun slide getting caught on pearls was just ridiculous, but you clearly see Martha get shot in the face but when we see her body, there's no whole in her face or blood. But the whole scene though was just to set up the "Martha" thing at the end. It just didn't work. In Gotham though, Martha willingly gives her pearls and Thomas doesn't do anything to stop it or get 'em back. He's even reassuring Bruce as well. It just works and feels like what a mother and father would really do to protect their child. And the scream at the end is what really sells it! The murder in BvS was supposed to be vulgar and larger than life since we are watching the dreamlike memories of Bruce. The imagery of the gun and the pearl is important as it represents the horror of the gun hurting his mother and it is stuck in his mind since that day. It informs his anti-gun stance which makes his embrace of violence in the movie ironic and shocking, culminating in the Martha scene with Superman when Bruce realises he is essentially recreating his parents’ murder with Superman as the victim.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 2, 2017 5:14:40 GMT
It informs his anti-gun stance which makes his embrace of violence in the movie ironic and shocking, culminating in the Martha scene with Superman when Bruce realises he is essentially recreating his parents’ murder with Superman as the victim. At what point is Batfleck anti-gun? He uses one in nearly every scene. And his violence doesn't culminate in the Save Martha scene, because he goes right back to brutally killing people directly afterward.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 2, 2017 5:20:46 GMT
As far as Gotham's goes, it does have the best acting of Bruce, at least umtil he turns into a Wendigo. That and other things knock the scene down for me.
I'd probably go with Batman Begins overall. Closest to the comics, feels the most real, and everyone (even the mugger) has character. The 89 version is ruined by Joker's inclusion, and BvS' was hilariously pretentious.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Nov 2, 2017 6:11:04 GMT
My vote goes to Batman Begins. it was very well acted and felt realistic.
|
|