Originally posted by spidey-dude
those looked like dobermans to me
Nope, they were rottweilers.
And it's not related but, isn't it weird that PETA is all up in arms about those two scenes? They're saying it was cruel and promotes violence toward dogs. I guess it's ok to beat the shit out of humans, but don't you dare injure a dog that attacks you. 🙄
Originally posted by jrodslam
Funny how its mentioned Keaton Bats got "schooled" in the belfry, yet he didnt bother to go on the offensive till he decided to beat the guy.😬
So he decided to purposely let some guy beat him down? That really doesn't make any sense, and sounds like a bad excuse.
From what I remember, Keaton didn't go on the offensive because he couldn't. The guy mauled him and knocked him over the ledge. Then Keaton simply surprised him after the fight was "over".
Now granted it's been a while since I watched Batman 89. I'll look for the vhs if I get bored enough.
Originally posted by grimify
So he decided to purposely let some guy beat him down? That really doesn't make any sense, and sounds like a bad excuse.From what I remember, Keaton didn't go on the offensive because he couldn't. The guy mauled him and knocked him over the ledge. Then Keaton simply surprised him after the fight was "over".
Now granted it's been a while since I watched Batman 89. I'll look for the vhs if I get bored enough.
Yes, he purposely let the guy pound on him. If you do get the chance to watch it again, hes just taking the hits. Its not a bad excuse. Its what happened.
Keaton didnt go on the O because he didnt want to. The guy grabbed him from behind and tossed him. Keaton gave him a stiff kick to the side, then proceeded to dodge and take all his hits. When he wanted to take him out, he did. Whether it was by surprise or not hardly matters.
except if you watch it again you clearly see keaton try to kick the thug, which HAS NO EFFECT. so yeah, he did try to fight back, he just failed. HARD. he let him beat on him, sure whatever you say, lol. can i use that excuse everytime one of my favorite characters loses a fight? if keaton could have taken him, he would have. instead, he killed him out of desperation. don't you think bats would have tried to take the guy out by not killing if he could? to try and spin that fight as anything but a poor showing for keaton is blatant fanboyism.
Originally posted by nimbus006at least keaton killed his joker. bale didnt have the balls to take out his when he had the chance he just left him there hanging from the cord.
This is not even close.Keaton's fight scenes were some of the worst coordinated fighting sequences ever.
BB and TDK at least attempted to use real MA tactics in their movies.
Additionally, Bale is younger and in much better shape than Keaton was at the time.
Originally posted by spidey-dude
at least keaton killed his joker. bale didnt have the balls to take out his when he had the chance he just left him there hanging from the cord.
Read Batman.
Killing someone has nothing to do with courage.
Courage, in Batman's case, is having the will to ensure justice (not killing Joker) in the face of temptation (letting him die).
Originally posted by nimbus006killing joker would have saved many innocent lives if you still leave him alive even in jail hes gonna sneak out somehow sooner or later. if hes dead theres no harm he can do to anyone in gotham anymore. for example would you rather have osama being dead or have him roam free in your town never knowing what hes gonna do ?
Read Batman.Killing someone has nothing to do with courage.
Courage, in Batman's case, is having the will to ensure justice (not killing Joker) in the face of temptation (letting him die).
Originally posted by spidey-dude
killing joker would have saved many innocent lives if you still leave him alive even in jail hes gonna sneak out somehow sooner or later. if hes dead theres no harm he can do to anyone in gotham anymore. for example would you rather have osama being dead or have him roam free in your town never knowing what hes gonna do ?
that's not how batman works. Who the hell is batman to decide who lives and who dies? He operates outside the law, but he does not operate above the law. Notice that was their choice of words in TDK, batman operates "outside" the law vs. "above" the law. Killing criminals because they'll commit crimes later is just a really simple way of looking at things.
What if somebody killed that prisoner who took the detonator on the ferry? What then? How many innocent people would have been saved if someone killed that prisoner, the one who threw the detonator overboard?
Originally posted by Tenebrousthats not how batman works ? keaton made sure joker had that anvil tied on to his feet so he couldnt make it up the ladder onto the helicopter. bale just left him hanging there and im sure joker could have gotten down somehow after bats left.
that's not how batman works. Who the hell is batman to decide who lives and who dies? He operates outside the law, but he does not operate above the law. Notice that was their choice of words in TDK, batman operates "outside" the law vs. "above" the law. Killing criminals because they'll commit crimes later is just a really simple way of looking at things.What if somebody killed that prisoner who took the detonator on the ferry? What then? How many innocent people would have been saved if someone killed that prisoner, the one who threw the detonator overboard?
and also lets say some dude killed one of your family members you think he deserves to still live ?
Originally posted by emporerpants
except if you watch it again you clearly see keaton try to kick the thug, which HAS NO EFFECT. so yeah, he did try to fight back, he just failed. HARD. he let him beat on him, sure whatever you say, lol. can i use that excuse everytime one of my favorite characters loses a fight? if keaton could have taken him, he would have. instead, he killed him out of desperation. don't you think bats would have tried to take the guy out by not killing if he could? to try and spin that fight as anything but a poor showing for keaton is blatant fanboyism.
If you read my post, i did mention Keaton giving him a stiff kick to the side. If you wanna call that fighting back, ok. Yet in the scene in the alley, the guy had the 2 swords, hes shown defending as well as fighting back. Evey other fight in the movie showed Keaton defending or fighting. This one instance its clear that he was only allowing the big guy to use a bunch of energy. He let him beat on him for the simple fact that it took almost all his energy and couldnt even break free from a leg grab and got tossed over. And you say Keaton wasnt letting the big guy beat on him? Yea right.