Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Spooky reviews 1st draft of Aronofsky & Frank Miller's BATMAN YEAR ONE screenplay!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... Well it looks like Frank Miller and Darren Aronofsky have completely reconceived and made BATMAN YEAR ONE a period film. Now the problem is that a lot of people are expecting a straight adaptation of BATMAN YEAR ONE, Miller's groundbreaking series, HOWEVER, with Aronofsky and nearly 18 years passing with Miller... Well when they stepped up to adapt, they had some... well, radical ideas. Some that work, and probably some that really really don't. According to our scooper Spooky, Aronofsky and Miller are at Draft 3 now, and what he was able to lay hands on was the 1st Draft. And this... well I'm dying to read it myself. I'm a huge fan of Seventies Crime films... I loved reading the Neal Adams era Batman with those long long horns... He was mean and beat the hell out of people. Bringing real world crime into the universe and lingo from the era... this BATMAN script is not for purists, but rather... those of us that love those Elseworld non-canon stories like THE KILLING JOKE or DARK KNIGHT RETURNS... Obviously Warners has given notes on this, but well Warners' notes on BATMAN films in the past have never particularly helped. However, I place faith in Aronofsky and Miller, but have hesitation at some of this... This is very spoiler filled so read only at your own choice...

Ok so I sat down again and read this BATMAN YEAR ONE script that is dated


Darren Aronofsky ,Frank Miller..

My source tells me (and he has yet to fail me) that this is the real deal.I explained how I know him and all that source stuff in an eariler email. Now onto the story..It seems all the hints  Aronofsky has given over the past 6 months are true.What we thought was just talk ends up being taken to the extreme. A 1970's style french Connection thriller..Well that and the fact that Aronofsky always seems to find a spot for drug addicts in his films. Well lets just start from the begining....

The films opens in 1953..Again (because film fans just can't seem to remember why batman came to be) We witness the horrible Murders of the wayne family..This is explained in about 5 pages.So do the plot holes start in the script yet? yes they do..Infact This story is full of pop culture references.. The details of whats going on around the story overwelm what is happening. Do we really have to know that the newest elvis single is playing in the streets on the night of the murder?..(YES THE KING HAS MADE IT INTO ANOTHER FILM,Does miller have a thing for elvis? Robocop 2 anyone?) The plot whole is the fact that Elvis did'nt have a national radio single until 1956..Anyways the mom and dad are gunned down..We had to see this because we have'nt figured out why Bruce wayne is batman (basicly the point of year one's concept..Yet is goes crazy from here)

(Here I'm sure is where Clint Mansell's Techno,disco Trip inspired score blasts over flashing images of Shag carpet and Bat logos.Somehow I think of a shaft like WAHH chicki chicki WAHH with a techno beat)

20 years later

Like I said Aronofsky seems to make sure DRUGS have a major role in each of his films.The opening lets us into this Herion-Under world smuggling on gothams harbor..A huge warehouse..Were The Penguin (Roman replacement) is made into a drug smuggling Mob boss..That talks bird jive. And yep we get to see some Herion pumping action..As the penguin shows Some of his goons what will happen if they turn on him.He attaches a thug to a table and injects tons of herion into him...dadada sceen plays out way to long..And then BAM! COPS BURST IN..Jim gordon and all..Smack smack.. Machine guns..Car chase..You keep expecting batman to show up but he never does.


Bruce wayne Takes an old school Girlfriend (yet he has been gone from gotham for sometime) Out on a night to some Gay disco club.. Then we sit through 30 pages of Bruce Wayne doing this and that.Suddenly relizing he is a BAT!..In this film he is driving with some blonde Bimbo in his Corvette and a bat slams into the windsheild causing an accident.He has some Flash backs (that play more like drug trips) and he looks at the girl after he saves her from the exploding car..He says "I've got a job to do"


Then BAM! We flash onto a sceen where Bruce wayne is dressed in a Black outfit..Fighting some thugs..Then he does the whole they are not afraid of me..I must be a Bat thing and makes an outfit..And converts his Stingray Corvette into a Batmobile. The black Alfred..hmmm..Well When Aronofsky said "Year One will be something Cool and Differnt" Is this what he meant?..A jive talken brotha..Well I'm no racest..But SPAWN is BLACK and ALFRED is WHITE! Batman walks out in the outfit and asks alfred "How do I look?" Alfred " Slammen!" (WHAT THE HELL?)


Inbetween this whole Bruce wayne becomes Batman alfed jive section.We see Jim gordon grow more and more concerned with the city.Bruce Wayne in support throws an Anti drug rally at wayne manor.Thus the penguin shows up and Starts some shit..Yep and Wayne Manor is burnt down.Harvey dent has a small sceen where he talks about the evil's of drugs..Oh wait! Dent is white (just so you guys know).Suddenly the next day (after all the main characters escape the blaze..Com'on !) Wayne has this huge high rise  Studio 54 disco Apartment high above gotham.Ontop on the wayne corp building (now it's just me but..Wayne just returned to gotham city at the start of this film after 10 years of schooling in england..He is 23..When did he start wayne corp? possibly his dad did?..But this goes unexplained) Yep and suddenly A niffty Batcave is made in the "Depths of the Dirty town" as the script says..


Well here is where I guess the film hits the 1hr 20 min mark..With a good 50 minuits left..We kick in right?..Yeah it moves fast..But there is so much shit going on ...First off the penguin somehow just dissipers because ITS TIME FOR THE RED HOOD SAGA!..dada! On batmans first night out he brings some of the penguin's thugs tied up to Gordon (who is not yet a commishner)..This kinda begins the Gordon/Batman thing.We learn that A man in a RED hood has been robbing banks and bussiness's over the past few weeks..For some reason the Penguin and his few followers decide to take over the chemical factory.When The red hood shows up ..And we get to see just how the joker was made again!...BANG! ZAP! ZANG!...Big fight..Penguin goes to jail and the guy in the red hood bites it (or so we thought)..Gorden thanks batman for saving the day..Dadada!.. Did I mention GORDON HAS A BEER AND CHEETS ON HIS WIFE! God I guess this story is about him..But all we see him do is Drink,Screw,,and talk to batman...

But wait..The Bat-Signal..Batman is in the Batcave and get this THE RED PHONE RINGS!!! (WHAT THE FUCK!) Gordon" Batman a crazy fool calling himself Da joka is terrorizing the city!" Batman' I'm on it!"

Yeah we get this cool 20 page fight with the joker and Batman..You see he kipnaps GORDON"S DAUGHTER and takes her to an old amusment park where she is stripped nakked..And although we don't see it ,,It's implied she was raped..Yeah you guessed it The joker is pissed because" Gordon and Batman let his Red Hooded ass fall into some chemicals".So he shoots barbra in the back.(surprised?)..I guess it's also not a surprise when we see her alive in a hospital bed in the end?.. The thing is...Even though The joker talks more jive than Dolmite..And Batman is walking around like he knows whats up (This is like he first few weeks as batman,,And there are no screw up?..Com'on I wanna see Batman fall..I want to see the mistakes he learns from) Batman and the Joker do this Talking this (ala The killing joke) and they act like they have always known each other.. Joker " Wow A life full of pain..Frowning on the outside..Laughing on the inside..But now Bats..I smile FOR YOU!" (what the hell does that mean) Batman "I'm not one to smile" (you go BOY!) lalala...Big fight ontop of some Amusment park ride..Where Batman Discovers a plan to POSIN THE CITYS WATER SUPPLY! THIS MUST BE STOPPED


So some shit goes down and it looks like the joker is dead (ofcourse he is'nt)..Gordon and batman have some coffe (No really they do)..Gordon visits Barbra in the hospital and kisses his wife for the first time in the film..(I can't belive they did'nt manage to fit one more GORDON HAS A BEER AND CHEETS ON HIS WIFE sceen)

Bruce wayne visits the hospital and leaves..With Black JIve Talken Alfred picking him up in a taxie.Explaining to bruce that "That he  needs to get laid" Then the bat signal goes off high above..Bruce and alfred see it.. Alfred says " IT"S ON NOW!"...Bruce "Your damn right it is"

(Here I'm sure is where some more of Clint Mansell's Techno,disco Trip inspired score blasts ) Then we have some fun when we see (MAJOIR SPOLIER!) The joker is'nt dead..He is sitting on top of a building and flips a joker's card.He is starring at the bat signal!.. END!

Yes that is the incredible 70's ,French-connection-esqe,New and Cool Miller/Aronofsky EPIC..I tried to talk about the story (wait there was one of those?) But I did'nt even get into all the Hokey 70's pop culture Bullshit..Since then I have heard that the WB had a 2nd draft ordered..Then they read that And had a 3rd draft written (which I belive is being written now)..If this is what Year One is...Batman Beyond,Dark knight returns, Hell even TRIUMPHANT has a good chance of making it over this PILE OF SHIT!


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Aug. 9, 2001, 10:51 p.m. CST

    the man wrote Robocop 2

    by Guerilla_Films

    And the guy who made REQUIUM FOR A DREAM? I have no idea about this one...

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 10:53 p.m. CST


    by MrMajestyk

    is this fucking real? I doubt it

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 10:56 p.m. CST

    I Always Took That YEAR ONE Thing Literally.

    by Buzz Maverik

    "Waaaaaaaaah!" "Isn't he ever going to sleep?" "Itsababyboy, yesitis. Yesitis." "It's your turn to change him." "Waaaaaah!" "Alfred, change Bruce."

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:02 p.m. CST

    What a terrible review...

    by crimsonrage

    ...I'm sorry, but that was one of the most incomprehensbile things to ever appear on this site. Just terrible.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:03 p.m. CST

    You're kidding me.

    by Cutter20

    This sounds so awful it's not even funny. Seriously: WTF? This from the man who gave us "Requiem"? I refuse to believe that Aronofsky will totally fart on the Batman franchise like so many others have done. Please, please, let Draft 3 not be as horrid as this. Please, Darron.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:06 p.m. CST

    Well, it ain't Schumacher...

    by costello78

    ...But it sounds equally terrible. Now, don't misunderstand; I like Miller and when I heard Darren Aronofsky was directing it made me happy. But, well...I hope some cooler heads prevail at Warner's, and they can find a middle ground- something cool, set in the seventies(which I like), and dark. Just lose the jive-talin' butler. Ouch.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Well, it ain't Schumacher...

    by costello78

    ...But it sounds equally terrible. Now, don't misunderstand; I like Miller and when I heard Darren Aronofsky was directing it made me happy. But, well...I hope some cooler heads prevail at Warner's, and they can find a middle ground- something cool, set in the seventies(which I like), and dark. Just lose the jive-talkin' butler. Ouch.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:14 p.m. CST


    by Unnatural

    I don't believe a word of this review. If this is indeed the script it is probably a first draft with all the cool ideas they want in the film. I will believe more when we are closer to filming. This review is pure bullshit and the writer (if you want to call him/her that) is pathetic. Did you finish 8th grade dude?

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:15 p.m. CST


    by Si Rowe

    OK, I guess I can sort of see the "Elseworlds" thing... blaxploitation Alfred, 70s Batman, et cetera... but what's up with the chronology of this film? All right, Bruce's parents are killed in 1953... and twenty years later he becomes Batman. I can deal with that. But he's 23 then? He was only *three* when Dr. and Mrs. Wayne took him to see "The Mark of Zorro"? Isn't that pushing it a bit? The other problem with the 1973 setting is that if this is Batman: Year One, then nowadays in 2001 we've already got the middle-aged Bruce Wayne of Dark Knight or Batman Beyond. I think that you could have just as effective a setting in the Bret Easton Ellis money-crazed neon-blinded days of the mid- to late '80s -- hell, the Penguin could be an Ivan Boesky type, investing in the most profitable industry of all: crime! Or maybe not. Scratch that idea. I'm not too crazy about mixing the "Year One" and "Killing Joke" stories. Leave the Joker and Barbara Gordon out of the mix. Let it be Batman, Gordon, and some criminals -- replacing the Roman with the Penguin is OK, but don't make it too freakish. Although Tim Burton's Batman was great, we need to get away from that if the franchise is going to be revitalized. And finally... GET A SPELLCHECKER, SPOOKY!!!! Gordon "cheets" on his wife? Penguin injects "herion" into his men? I know that the editorial standards on this site are pretty lax, but please!

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:16 p.m. CST

    What the hell?

    by seth_clooney

    If I wanted to see a jive-talkin' seventies movie, I would have been born in the 50's. What the hell are Miller and Aronofsky thinking with this crap? Now, I've read Dark Knight... I think it's pretty good, but overall it's slightly overrated, and I've never seen any of Darren's films, but so far, these dudes are on the wrong track. Good luck to you, Frank and Darrin, I hope you know what you are doing, cuz at this point, I don't think anyone else does.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:17 p.m. CST

    I usually like to wax poetic and attempt provide some type of in

    by aaron_stack

    I can't! This movie sounds fucking ridiculous....I'm going to sleep!

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:22 p.m. CST

    vanilla ice reviews da batman!?!?

    by ron manger

    not a great review of an eagerly anticipated movie script. If this is indeed a genuine review, I'm surprised to find no mention of Catwoman - in fact there is no mention of any real female characters.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Spike lee is Alfred! Mike Myers is Batman

    by aaron_stack

    Oprah is Catwoman, Sara Jessica Parker is the Penguin, Suge Knight is Gordon, Marlon Brando is Bruce Waynes father.....

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:27 p.m. CST


    by 28


  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:39 p.m. CST


    by Dinadan

    The Killing Joke is canon. Even the Joker's origin thread is canon, inasmuch as it's his memories or hallucinations, one of many. The only noncanon part is the photo of the Silver Age Bat Family. I don't have a problem with a black Alfred, as long as he maintains all the essential qualities of Alfred. He must be an Englishman, a veteran or the son of a veteran, an actor, and possessed of a quick wit. In other words, he must be Jeffries from The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Hummpphhh...HA!...heehee...<attempted muffled laughter>hmmmphhh.

    by Huneybee

    Oh GD... Oh I mean... hemmmpphhhh... haaa haaa...heee hee... gosh darn it all... hehahahahhahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! <Draws in shuddering breath>... And Snorts! He he he... This is a joke right? I am not a comic fan but... hehe, hahaha... AWWW HELL!!! This is the funniest thing I have read EVER on this site! Awww Sh*t Ron whatever...Catwoman IS mentioned, in a way, the MF sews a batman suit. I hope... hmmmphh... hahahha I go that part right. Oh damn, that was tooo effing funny. Hmmphh... calming down now that there is distance between me and that... that... atrocity of a story. Virginia, If there is a Santa Claus, please let me add to my wish list that NOTHING of this script winds up in the movie.___Bee... Hhhmmmmmmphhh HA! Snort~! Hahahaheheheheeeeee

  • Aug. 9, 2001, 11:56 p.m. CST

    i'll see it...

    by puubs

    if bruce wayne says: "it is my duty, to please that booty"

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Spel cheker????

    by Geordiebert

    Is is just me, or did that story not get run through a spell checker? On the subject of the story, this could be VERY interesting, even if does mean that Alfred is no longer English, and a former MI6 agent.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:21 a.m. CST


    by hktelemacher

    Is Aronofsky even working on this now? He's got that untitled sci-fi flick with Brad Pitt already in pre-production, and I thought that Year One was on the back burner for the time being. I always thought that Aronofsky was the best choice to rejuvenate the franchise as Schumacher nearly destroyed it. He could capture the real grim grit that should be associated with a character like Batman. Burton tried to do it, but always seemed more interested in the villains. The Year One story has no dominating villain, and I've always thought of it as more of a character study rather than a slam-bang comic piece. Aronofsky is a brilliant filmmaker, and I doubt that 70s pop culture references will dominate the movie. Maybe this guy was reading the Quentin Tarantino draft.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:25 a.m. CST

    Alfred could be played by

    by Ruby_Rod

    Chriiiiiis Tucker! Aw yeah baby. Bug them eyes out! Jive talking Alfred, huh? Someday archeologists will put Along Came A Spider in a special museum, labelled "very rare example of turn-of-the-millenium American entertainment in which a black man does not do a dance, make silly faces, or scream like a woman."

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:36 a.m. CST

    CHEETS? how about CHEATS.

    by se7en-x2000

    That's all I had to say. What the hell is a cheet? I kept thinking of cheeto's for some reason. I think Harry has a hankerin' for some cheesy poofs. Other than that, great looking script. I don't agree about the Batman messing up tho, I mean come on, obviously he's a kick ass fella from the go, like James Bond. How many times do we have to see a superhero coming of age movie and think "I wish he was good at what he does and not falling all over himself" ahh well.... CHEET? haha sorry

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:39 a.m. CST

    First Draft

    by BoBaBrain

    I guess this *is* just the first draft. A brainstorming session more than anything else. Just lots of ideas, but no real structure or point. But still, you think someone would at least go to the trouble of proof reading it for grammer and spelling mistakes. "could'nt"...

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:59 a.m. CST

    This is an obviously Fake Review!!!


    Have any of you read Frank Miller? ( Forget about his re-written script for Robocop.It was taken away from him and destroyed, if you don't know the story. ) Any comicbook fan who has read Miller can tell you that this isn't his work.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 1:26 a.m. CST

    Utter bullshit

    by robomofo

    This is way too over the top to be true, for Arronofsky or Miller. I'm sorry but it seems to me that someone is taking advantage of our anticipation and excitement concerning the development of this project, who knows that we'lll latch on to any tiny tidbit of info fed our way. I think we're being played. The cringe factor is just way too high here to be kosher. Also, and I'll be the first to admit that my spelling and grammar are not always so rosy, I say anyone who butchers english as badly as this is full of it. One of you oughta strike a new term for this kind of guy--it looks as though there are people who delight in crafting cute little lies in an effort to gain all of our attentions. I suppose he pulled it off, huh?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Oh NO! This is just going to fuck up all Joel Schumacher's hard

    by Magic Milkmaid

    I don't see how they can improve on Joel Schumacher's movies. The intricately composed shots, the subtle character gestures he draws from his actors and his ingenious use of lighting. Does anyone remember the opening action scene in Batman & Robin where the spotlight follows mr.freeze like one of those 'show on ice' things you get at Disney World? Genius.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:29 a.m. CST

    I agree

    by bobby_g

    That is probably the most incomprehesible review I have ever had the displeasure of reading. No spell checker? The only thing I got out of it was that Alfred was black!! Now, thats just not right. Still , it was just the first draft - heres hoping by the time it comes out it'll live up to the expectations.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:31 a.m. CST

    I love this shit, its bold, freaky, ridiculous and infuriating.

    by Spacesheik

    Holy Shit, Batman! A dark, 70s set crime thriller with jive talking, adultery, a black Alfred and an assortment of cameos by villains (Harvey Dent, Penguin, Joker etc). I love this!!! Man, is this going to rock the franchise! I knew the Batman franchise needed an enema, but this exceeded my expectations. I'm surprised no one else thinks much of it in this forum. It's just so freaky, audiences will gape at the screen with their mouth opens. I like it.

  • This in no way resembles Batman: Year One. That 4 part story could be shot almost as is.****** SPOILER ALERT ******* Just change the ending so that Gordon is talking to Bats instead of himself****** END SPOILER ****** For those of you who have never read it, and don't want to deal with "Comic-book Guy", any Barnes & Noble or Borders should have at least one copy of the trade paperback on the shelves. No Catwoman? No Wayne Manor scene? (Fans know what I'm talking about, go buy the trade). Elements and PANELS of this story have been used in almost every incarnation-Burton, Schu., heck to Bruce Timm and Paul Dini it is THE BIBLE (Mask of the Phantasm, Sub-Zero, the animated episode "Heart of Ice" and that's just off the top of my head). This script as described just doesn't read right. It doesn't even read like Frank Miller's "Sin City" (another GREAT BOOK. God I love film noir style tales).-----later-----m

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Did either of these fellas see "BATMAN" (1989)?

    by SamWave

    Didn't we already cover this ground? Bring back Keaton and Burton! There really is no substitute for the original bat-team (Burton would never have let Robin into any of them). I'd rather see another sequel, and just assume that the last 2 films were never made. Boy were they bad.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Attack of the Jive-talking Butler!

    by Dark Howler

    God, this script sounds terrible. Hopefully, this isn't the real deal and Year One will be something much much better. A jive-talking Alfred? Dear God, say it ain't so! Although, the stripping Barbara Gordon naked scene sounds interesting.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Where's the love interest?

    by DrX

    This is only a first draft right? Im sure there working in the toy franchises and chick interests as we speak. "Uh can we lose the cape? And can we stop him being so aggressive. Perhaps he can just council the villans and turn the batcave into a childrens drop-in centre." As usual we have high hopes from his writing team. Lets give them a chance. Year one isnt enough to be a film. Its good to extend the story with the Killing Joke stuff. (Perhaps the should get Alan Moore on as an advisor). I do think the Mazzuchelli art is the way to go for the look though. Id like to see a strong plot that is more film noir. Along the lines of Millers Crossing. Id like to see David Fincher direct it like Seven. Id like to see a big cheque in my letterbox from Warner Bros thanking me for this contribution!!!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 3:59 a.m. CST


    by gah rides again

    If this is real then Titanic 2: love on the hindenburg is already in preproduction. If stupid fanboy jerkwads want to play tricks on people they should at least have the decency to write something coherent. And Harry, come on man. How can you even post this shit?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:01 a.m. CST

    I like ZeroCorpse's ideas better.

    by Sith Lord Jesus

    This sounds too F'ed up to be true. I, unlike some, do *not* believe Aronofsky is a hack, but damn if this script doesn't need a rewrite or three (which thankfully seems to be happening). I also don't like the idea of a Black Alfred. Being Black myslef I'm all for more African-American characters on the big screen, but I don't want to see established characters "re-imagined" just so the writer can insert jive '70's lingo into his script. Back to the drawing board, ace.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Samuel "The Man" Jackson as Alfred...

    by Huneybee

    I pray to the gods of film that this version will not happen, but if it does <hmmph... heehee... snort - sorry, still not over that earlier fit>, SJ would be the bestest coolest Alfred!____A Bee Lacking Rubber Nipples

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:29 a.m. CST

    DrX I disagree Year 1 is almost perfect

    by MGTHEDJ

    Compress chapters 1 and 2 for the first 30-45 minutes, chapter 3 is the one set piece lasting 20 minutes and keep the chapter 4 finale. It is a BATMAN story. And what he is really fighting is the corruption of the powerful.******SPOILER ALERT****** Bats and Gordon are really fighting the cops and THE MAYOR who are all getting a cut from the Mob.*******END SPOILER******* Using the Penguin? I prefer the Timm/Dini 2nd incarnation of Penguin as a front man and fencer for high end merchandise on Gotham's blackmarket, not a drug dealer nor a freak (ala Miller's Mutant Leader/Timm & Dini's Killer Croc) like Burton's interpretation. The point of Miller's book is Bats inspires others out for vengence who in the end are psychotic (Joker, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Scarecrow) or are really just thieves (Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler).-----later-----m

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:53 a.m. CST

    "The Animated Series" Was the Best

    by ety3

    Aside from the first two Burton movies, any other non-comic Batman incarnation has blown. EXCEPT, for the Batman animated series that has aired since 1993. This cartoon captured the essence of the Dark Knight better than anything else. This cartoon had more drama packed into its shows than the movies. This cartoon was no cartoon. That's why it's called "The Animated Series." Here's hoping the Dark Knight continues on in his finest form in the "JLA" series on Cartoon Network.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Year One IS perfect....

    by DrX

    Its my favourite. The tone is absolutely spot on. I just want more of it I guess. But you are right. There is enough there for a film.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:35 a.m. CST


    by Weegie

    To the reviewer, I did not finish reading your review due to the spelling and grammatical errors that it contained. In the future, if you want to establish credibility with people who matter, you need to correct such mistakes.

  • Forget the piffle found free-flowing throughout this screenplay. What the hell is this dreck we must wade through to divine any meaning? I know this site is not known for its journalistic professionalism but allowing crap like this to be posted, in this form, is unforgivable. Is it impossible, for example, to spell the word "Cheat" right, at least once? God a'mighty...

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Holy moly.

    by carouselambra

    Harry, you should be embarrassed for running such an incomprehensible, poorly-written review. For all upcoming reviewers, please put a little thought and time into what you write/say, for freak's sake.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Um, this sounds like shit

    by mick67w54

    And it was written about as well. Even so, if the script REALLY does contain these elements the movie will be a fucking joke--I don't care how "brilliant" some of you think Aronofsky is. Ahh fuck it, this franchise officially died the minute Warner Bros decided to chase Burton away. It's been nothing but crap since, and it sounds as if Aronofsky and Frank Miller are almost more influenced by Joel Freakin' Schumacher than Burton or Miller's own previous work on Batman. Possible disaster in the making. WB should just get Burton+Keaton+Elfman to come back and do another movie (let's just forget about Aronofsky/Miller's script if this shit is true, and the Schumacher debacles)--they're the only ones to do anything good with this material on the big screen.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:08 a.m. CST

    This is so obviously a joke

    by JonQuixote

    And I gotta say, if there ever is a Special Olympics version of the Pulitzer, I think I know which script-reviewer is going to be first in line for his prize!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:20 a.m. CST

    Damn this reviewers spelling suks!!!

    by sundown

    He is thye comisiisioner an the cheets of his wive....>DAMN! Use a fricken spell checker if you're going to write a review. This guy comes off like a retard and I can't judge his review cause of it. Overall I'm angry about the Killing Joke being included in here. I think they hav an opportunity to do a real Batman and show everyone Year One.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:22 a.m. CST

    Just Bring Burton Back!!!

    by tommygun1921

    Enough already. It's becoming increasingly obvious just how good Burton's two flicks are after reading about this latest disaster and having to be put through the pain of those other two...things. For all the bitching the idiot fanboy community did with Burton he actually did something cool with the character. I can't figure out how, if this is true, Frank Miller could write shit like this considering his other contributions to Batman. Man, this screenplay (and the review of it) are proof positive of why drugs and 'creativity' don't mix. What kinda bad joke is this crap? The original concept of a 70's French Connection-type Batman sounded pretty good (Tax Driver would be better), but this is just utter...I don't know what, but it's damn awful. I'd just like another movie in the style Burton presented, preferably in the same vein as that German Expressionist masterpiece known as Batman Returns (it's sad how many diss this grotesquely brilliant film). Burton should come back to Batman, maybe he could rediscover some of the creativity that he's seemingly lost with more recent stuff like Sleepy Hollow and Planet of the Apes.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:25 a.m. CST

    Year one

    by spiralstairs

    The Batman year one storyline should'nt be messed with.When Mr Aronofski was given the green light to do the film & included Frank Miller in the writing process I was very happy.But after reading the report I'm a little worried that the ghosts of past Batman directors have taken him in the wrong direction.I was hoping that warners would leave them to it but this screenplay reeks of the warner seal of cheese! I think the 70's reference is important but the jamming of so many villans in one film is a dodgy way to go "Batman Forever" anyone? The word of the day for Aronofski & Miller should be "DARK DARK DARK".Spiral

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:35 a.m. CST

    This actually sounds too good to be true!

    by asder

    FM is a guy that changes the way we see things...only because he SLAPS us in the face with his esoteric view of the world (SAme goes for Darren A).The BLACK Alfred is a great change (makes more sense to me that a black guy would be a servant back in the day than a white dude *OH NO RACISM*...SLAP)...If this review has any truth to it, I must say I am still feeling the shock!...incorporating Alan Moores 'the killing joke story arc is a nice twist (I hope we get to see the failing comedian turn into the Joker)...this will without a doubt be the best 'TAKE' on Batman...if any of you are REAL Batman fans you'd know that he is a character that has MANY takes...he has been a character that has been put through the we get back to having FUN with Bats! CAUSE OVERALL THIS IS A STORY ABOUT THE COMMISH and his crazy buddy who dresses up as a bat and makes Him feel slightly less CRAZY...OH, I say Howard Shore should do the score....ANY ARGUMENTS?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:36 a.m. CST

    This sounds more like a Wayans movie...

    by Spawnboy

    What the fuck? "It's on now!"? I bet they're high fiving eachother when Alfred says that...This csn't be the script..Frank Miller is one of the best Comicbook writers there is! He KNOWS Batman...and even trying to turn this pile-o-crap into a movie is just plain fucking Bob Kane over! Who the hell are they gonna cast as Batman? Matthew Lillard?! This is just as bad as spooky's spelling.."disipering"...?! dude...go to school..I don't even want to see a poster for this shit.. I hope this is all a big ass hoax.. I hope it's

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:41 a.m. CST


    by epitone

    Does the word SPELLCHECK mean anything to anyone these days?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:43 a.m. CST

    year one/killing joke

    by lord_ruthven

    Maybe I'm a purist, but just the idea of mixing Year One and Killing Joke makes me want to start a riot. The Killing joke had at it's core the years and years of antagonism between these two great characters and what it led them to. I don't think it would translate well into the film franchise at all, much less trying to shove elements of it half-assed into a Year One inspired story.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 6:51 a.m. CST


    by Ebon Far

    First, I think this is bullshit. I HOPE IT IS!!! Second, as a black man I encourage white people to protest the black Alfred the way they should have protested the black Harvey Dent in the first Batman film and Will Smith's Jim West from that other Warner Bros. "gem" (note the heavy sarcasm) Wild Wild West. These are established WHITE CHARACTERS. Give them to me as the white people I know and love please. I also would prefer the WHITE Kyle Rayner or the one and only white Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern in the upcoming Justice League animated series instead of the black John Stewart. There's a group of white superheroes. SO WHAT!?!! Are they all like that? NO!! If I made an all black superhero team no one would say shit unless someone felt it couldn't sell to a white (has the most money in the world) audience. I'm proud to have my ethnic group included in the series through Carl Lumbly, a fine black actor, who will provide the voice of the Martian Manhunter. I doubt if every ethnic group is included in the show, BUT MINE IS. That's good enough for me. It's unfortunate that everytime someone white opposes something black he or she is quickly labeled a racist. People give equality a lot of lip service but don't seem to know what it is. I oppose a black Alfred, I'M BLACK and I'm not a racist. It just seems fair to me. Would I want Mel Gibson to play Shaft? HEEELLL NO!!! If he did the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would be all over it. Try to have a good day gang.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:01 a.m. CST

    Frank. Why have you forsaken us?

    by banshee

    If this is true, then Frank Miller has lost his mind. I was one of the fans who was screaming from day one that Frank should have written the FIRST Batman movie back in 89. WHAT HAPPENED? None of this sounds like anything Frank has/would do. So that leaves two possibilities: 1> This story is complete BS, (God willing,) or 2> This is Androfskys instructions to Frank on what he wants him to write and just goes to prove HE IS NOT THE MAN TO DIRECT BATMAN!____WB if you're listening, let Frank write a story HE wants to do and sign Alex Proyas to direct it. That movie would definatly make you some serious truckloads of cash.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:07 a.m. CST

    The Law of diminishing returns

    by Rhett Butler

    (If this is for real)... then these are the kind of tired plot developments writers pull when they are sick to death of the characters. And if we judge them upon DC's 'Elseworlds' comic line then they fall into one category only; the last sour dregs of the cash cow. As for rape as a plot device? It must fall somewhere between 'professional' Yawn and consumer 'outrage'. Perhaps it sets up the sequel - 'Joker father's new Batgirl' EEEeeeew

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Spell check is a wondeful thing

    by Valjean999

    You may want to consider using it. While you are at it, try taking an English class or two.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Maybe I'm jaded...

    by the_pissboy1

    But there is no possible way a person this goddamn illiterate could have access to the Batman Year One screenplay. How could Harry print something by a person who writes "cheat" with two e's? Or some numbnuts who spells scene incorrectly?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:44 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry, but...

    by Rybock

    How can I take a review of a script (basically a literary critique) from someone with unreadably poor grammar and punctuation?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:11 a.m. CST

    What did you guys expect???? Get Burton back!!! No matter the

    by The Hitman

    The moment Darron was signed I knew that it just was not going to work. I have not been excited to see this film because it is like Warner Brothers wants to totally ignore the previous four films, like they never even happened. And while Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were not great at all, the two previous films by Burton were classics and the storylines in them should not be ignored. I have never approved of a Batman : Year One project because it ignores everything that happened in those first two films. To me, Warner Brothers should get out it's account book and realize that if they want a great Batman film, it's not going to come cheap. Sure, they can spend 25 million on Arnold Schwarzenegger to have less than one hours worth of screen time but they can't give Michael Keaton or Kurt Russell the 15 million that they would want to play the main character. They can also spend 100 million on special effects and expensive sets, something that Batman itself truly doesn't need. What this franchise truly needs is Tim Burton, it has lacked since he has departed it and he has a lot more of the visual style for a Batman film than Darron. I mean come on, for anyone who saw Planet of the Apes, has to admit it didn't even feel like a Tim Burton film and you have to wonder how much control over the project that Burton had rather than the corporate executives at 20th Century Fox. I kept waiting for a strong Tim Burton style to come out in the film, it never did. It was as if the studio and Burton felt that just putting the actors in expensive masks and make up would make it feel interesting. And a final battle in a Burton film taking place in the daytime??? Pleaaaase!!!! Burton's best shots are during night scenes. I think Burton is starting to lack and maybe he needs to go back to his roots, go back to Batman, start off where you left off and go at it from there. That franchise was going somewhere after those first two brilliant films, but then Burton left and that gave the executives at Warner Brothers total control over it. Truly do you think Schumacher would have made as bad a film had the executives gave him as high a budget? In those two god awful films it seemed that Schumacher had more money that he knew how to deal with. What Batman needs is that Tim Burton vision, that vision that can do a film cheaper but still have it feel like a Batman film. This script review felt like Shaft as I was reading it. To me we should remember what Batman is, and not try and reinvent him so much. To me, he is much more interesting the way he was presented in the first two films than any other and the type of character he was was clear, he was a no nonsense bad-ass in the first two films, who even had to fight the urge to kill. In this script he goes from bad-ass to nananana Batman from the sixties, he just doesn't seem as if he is stable and to me it seems as if Darron doesn't really know the approach he wants to go with this character. He lacks continuity in his story telling and it shows. So I hope the WB reconsiders and gets Burton back no matter the cost, to me he is the only one who can truly save this franchise.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:22 a.m. CST

    This sounds like a GOOD FLICK! What's wrong with you cats?!

    by Immortal Alice

    I'll admit, a black Alfred is an odd choice, but given the fact that Miller also made Selena Kyle a prostitute and Jim Gordon an alchoholic bed jumper, it doesn't exactly shock! Also, we are getting an opinion of a DRAFT of a script from someone who is obviously not enamored by it and laced his entire review with sarcasm. I have enough faith in Aronofsky and Miller to know that they will be delivering the first GREAT Batman film.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Yo Dis Shit Be Crazy, You Peeps Wanted Dark, Well Alfred Dark Ai

    by Son Of Batboy

    Just gettin into this new Bat-jive lingo that the kids are crazy about. If this is true the suits at Warner's must have waddled to their private bathrooms because I guarantee you not one of their asses left its leather seat without a colossal dump pushing at the seams. If this reviewer, obviously deprived of a speak-n-spell as a youth, can get a hold of the studio's notes on this latest draft, I'm sure we'll be entertained for countless hours. Well gotta run, a pedestrian just hit my windshield and I've gotta job to do.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:28 a.m. CST


    by Quiddity

    How can a guy who writes comics so well, with great plots and dialogue, write such terrible scripts. Jeeezus.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:38 a.m. CST

    How 'bout just make another sequel, but dark- Jeff Goldblum as S

    by Johnny FilmMaker

    And, hey, even bring back Clooney if you want...he never really got a good chance to prove himself a good Batman 'cause of the script and Schumacher. Personally, i thought Kilmer was the best Bruce Wayne and Keaton was the best Batman...that's just me. But ya, Jeff Goldblum would rock as Scarecrow and Jason Lee would be such a kick-ass Joker. And i've always said, throw a moustache and glasses on Nick NOlte and he IS JAmes Gordon....Thoughts, fellow TalkBackers?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:40 a.m. CST

    alfred is not black. period


  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Things wrong with this article.

    by carouselambra

    A. As someone above just said, somebody with such a confusion over 5th grade writing skills probably doesn't have access to be reading first drafts of highly-anticipated screenplays. B. This submission made it past the AICN big guns, clear and easy. None of them care (or more likely noticed) about the complete unreadability of the article. C. I can't imagine some of these ideas coming from Aronofsky or Miller.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:54 a.m. CST

    this is a hoax, i guarantee it

    by Krinkle

    No, no way could someone who writes this incredibly poorly have access to a first draft of a major studio picture. I mean, this person is a true moron, if his writing is any indication. In fact, the plot he's describing sounds like one ONLY someone as poor a writer as he is could have come up with. Three seperate villains? And where is the "French Connection" thing here? This sounds like fanboy role-playing B.S. But why would somebody wanna try and jink this cool-sounding project before it even comes close to materializing? "Talkback" is a strange, strange community.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:59 a.m. CST


    by The Llama

    This sounds terrible. No wonder people dismiss comic books as juvenile, when this is how they're represented to the public. Why do we always need screenwriters to pen a script for a film? Wouldn't it make more sense to ask Chuck Dixon or Greg Rucka or one of the other talented, knowledgeable, and experienced writers from the Batman comics to pen an original script? This sounds even worse than Batman and Robin, and reminds me of those terrible rumors a couple of years ago that Batman was being made into a Broadway musical. Ah well...and by the way, Harry, The Killing Joke is not Elseworlds and is very much so a part of the Bat-canon--how do you think Barbara Gordon ended up in her wheelchair?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9 a.m. CST

    DICK MILLER as Lt. Gordon!!!!

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    Jeez, how many times has the guy played a cop anyhow....

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Unbunch yer panties!

    by Shaz_bot80

    Lissen up sukas! This movie is in devlopment, meaning that they are trying different ideas and different directions. Does it mean that the final product will be like this script? It's possible, but don't look so glum fanboy. Anyhoo, who could make heads or tails of that review! This dude must of flunked english class.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:14 a.m. CST

    How 'bout just make another sequel, but dark- Jeff Goldblum as S

    by Johnny FilmMaker

    And, hey, even bring back Clooney if you want...he never really got a good chance to prove himself a good Batman 'cause of the script and Schumacher. Personally, i thought Kilmer was the best Bruce Wayne and Keaton was the best Batman...that's just me. But ya, Jeff Goldblum would rock as Scarecrow and Jason Lee would be such a kick-ass Joker. And i've always said, throw a moustache and glasses on Nick NOlte and he IS JAmes Gordon....Thoughts, fellow TalkBackers?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Another reason why this is bullshit...

    by JonQuixote

    Aside from the obvious retardation factor, there's another reason why this is bull. This 'set in the seventies' bullshit would never pass. Warner wouldn't want to timeline the ageless Bats! This whole 'Seventies' shit came up in the French Connection article, but to me it just seems misguided. I can't help but get the impression that Aronofsky made a passing comment about how he wanted it to have the feel of 70's actioners like French Connection and Serpico, and it just got blown out of proportion by idiot drooling fanboys, who hear the word 'seventies' and immediately start thinking of Afros and Superfly. This is far more likely the spastic musings of some delusional fanboy who dropped a chromosome while watching old 'Starsky and Hutch's on late night TV.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:30 a.m. CST

    JohnnyFilmmaker some good ideas

    by MGTHEDJ

    for continuing the storyline of the Burton/Schumacher films. For any AOL-TW people looking in, just cut Frank Miller a big bonus check, give him story and co-screenplay credit and shoot the Year 1 trade paperback: think of it as a script in storyboard form (just like Martin S., the Cohn Bros., and the Bros. W--you know, the ones making those Matrix films for you.) If you do that you will gross 100 million at the box-office and make tons of cash through T-shirts, toys and the DVD sales.-----later-----m

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:48 a.m. CST

    So, this may make me unpopular, but...

    by superninja

    I'm not a fan of Frank Miller's work as more than stand-alone stories. This also goes for Moore's The Killing Joke. It's a good read, but it just doesn't work for me because I don't like Batman as a murderous psychotic. What I'm wondering here is: DOES FRANK MILLER REALLY UNDERSTAND THE BATMAN CHARACTER? I know he understands how to take him to an ultimate extreme and then push him over the edge, but what else? I would like to think there is more to this character than just making him a violent freak. I'm hoping this is a fake.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:19 a.m. CST

    Not only can't this guys spell

    by Ardee-El

    But just for the record, a plot hole (not "plot whole") is not the same as an anachronism which is also not the same as a continuity error. C'mon people, suck it up! You're making us all look bad.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Um, Harry "The Killing Joke" is canon.

    by Foreskin_Jones

    Maybe you didn't read the same story most of us did but if the story was an Elseworld tale then Barbara Gordon wouldn't be in a wheelchair in the current Batman comics now would she?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:40 a.m. CST


    by Bry-Guy

    and you're trying to pin the same spirit onto BATMAN?! Let alone YEAR ONE? This better not be the direction AT ALL that they are going with this. All I want is a realistic mother FUCKING story!!!!! Why does shit constantly get shoved down my throat?! Why do my heroes get raped?!!! Do you know the only time when a superhero was done right and true on the screen was?! Actually IN THE SEVENTIES!! SUPERMAN, dammit!. It was campy, but that's the nature of that particular beast. BATMAN was always meant to be dark and gritty, not warped and shitty. Do it right, dammit. I still have faith...BUT...if I EVER hear Alfred tell Bruce that he needs to get laid, I know two people who will have a price on their heads. A BIG one. Suckas.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:55 a.m. CST

    This is so Fake that it makes Pamela Anderson's Tits and Britney

    by Foreskin_Jones

    Come on man, Aronofsky has stated himself that he hasn't even finished the FIRST draft yet because he is busy with his Sci-Fi film. Harry please check your sources for bogus crap like this it makes you lose credibility man. That shit was fucking hilarious though Batman: "How do I look Alfred?" Alfred: "Slammin'" that doesn't sound like Alfred hell that doesn't even sound like Mr. Belvedere that sounds more like Benson. Knowing Frank Miller's screenwriting it is possible he could write such tripe but knowing for a fact that the first draft isn't even written I know this is phony baloney.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Fucking HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Mr Chuff

    I (along with almost every other person in this talkback) think the above review is a fucking load of unmitigated cat-wank.... It just reads like shit (when you can make a fucking word out if it!). It doesn't sound ANYTHING LIKE Year One and for this site to post it is unforgivable. Is The Ginger Jabba to busy eating all the fat-cakes to bother screening such piss? Or has the stupid fat cunt lost all his fucking marbles? This is fake and no more about it please.....

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:14 a.m. CST

    long time no write superninja! Now we must fight.

    by sundown

    haven't seen u in a while whats up? Now enough with the pleasentry stuff- on Dark Knight I have this to say- Miller proved he knew the Bat cause in the end no matter how far the Joker pushed them the Bat couldn't take a life. Which is why I prefer comics over the Burton dynamite in the pants stuff. I do agree that Killing Joke felt like an elseworlds and doesn't work for me in the 'real' bat world. I like Miller and hope he keeps the spirit and I really think the Dark Knight was about much much more than the Bat acting violent. I stand by my casting of Guy Pearce as the Bat and Russel Crowe as Gordon. Jim Carrey would make a great young Joker if you're starting it from scratch and throwing the old crap out. Connely as the Cat and thats more than enough for one film.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:32 a.m. CST

    With a grain of Salt

    by homina1372

    First off, has anyone else had trouble loading the site? I have had to relaod it several times, and even then the formatting is off. As for this script. It must be taken with a grain of salt. I think we can all agree that it is possibly one of the worst reviews ever. But not because of the bad jokes or egregious spelling errors. We can all deal with that like mature adults. But this reviewer has mixed his opinion and what he has read so thoroughly that it is impossible to decipher what is being reported as fact and what is the reviewer's rambling. There is nothing wrong with rambling, but not when it prevents the information from being conveyed. At least when Harry rambles, you can tell when the facts begin. As for what I was able to glean from this review, which wasnt much, well, I'm not blown away, but its not nessecarily horrible. Will Brooker wrote a book Batman Unmasked which analyzes Batman as a cultural icon. He talks about how Batman hasn't reached the level of say Bond or Robin Hood, where the concept of the character is the dominating characteristic, not the history or continuity. The way I see it, Miller again, with the help of Aronofsky, is taking the concept of Batman and DOING something with it. And while I am huge Batman fan and I enjoy current continuity, I am a bigger fan of the NOTION of Batman. The idea that a child can be so scarred as to devote his life to ensuring that what happened to him doesnt happen to anyone one else is fascinating. As long as that concept is held to, it IS Batman. As for Alfred, it doesnt matter if he is black or white, what matters is if he is going to be true to the original character (who is British, witty, skilled, intelligent and an AWESOME character), OR if he is a compelling NEW character. There is nothing that says Alfred has to be the one from the comics (Read Batman: Lobo by Alan Grant and Simon Bisley for an interesting take on Batman's supporting cast). However, the character does have to be good. And I can't see Miller not writing a good character. Gordon, by the way, does drink beer and does cheat on his wife. He always has had marital problems. Until recently. Read No Man's Land for that. There are lots of Batman stories I would like to see told on film (Long Halloween on the top of that list), but I would rather see a good script made into an original movie than a bad of mediocre script made into a movie we have already seen. Batman: Year One was a great comic, but I dont need to see it directly parlayed onto film, becuase the story has already been told well. Dini and Timm took parts of it and fused it into thier own work. THAT is what I want to see. Something that is old and good infused with something ORIGINAL and good. Making movies that arent original is a waste. The only way we are ever going to see comic book movies being made seriously by hollywood is if all types get made. If studios don't think there is an audience for anything except direct comic adaptations, then they will only make direct adaptations, and that is a waste of the medium. Casino Royale (the one with Sellers and Woody Allen) is a hilarious parody of the James Bond genre. But if Bond had the same type of audience Batman does, I bet that great film would have never been made. I say trust Miller and Aronofsky, but dont expect anything, becuase then you are sure to be disappointed. If they bomb, so be it. I mean, if people hate this movie before seeing it, what are the chances studios will take chances with great but eccentric and or unproven talent like this with other big money making franchises. I think Burton's only mistake was trying to stay TOO close to what people wanted/cannonical Batman. Oh and Alan Moore's The Killing Joke is cannon and it is a masterpiece. Read it and try and tell me it doesnt freak you out. If it can be fit into the story, do it, becuase its the only way that story will be told on film (alone it is too short for film). Plus Barbara Gordon is such a strong female character, it would be awesome to see her on film. Talkback is such a good way to kill time at work.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:55 a.m. CST

    This is one of those scoops that is utter bullshit! It's so fake

    by frosteey

    I mean, come one! Aronofsky is hard at work with his scifi film! Do you really think he could be on his 3rd draft already? Right now he is the executive producer on BELOW and is starting pre-production on his SCIFI way!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:59 a.m. CST

    *snif, snif*

    by BigBadJon

    Is that bullshit I smell? I swear there are two people in this world you can trust with the Batman franchise. Jeph Loeb, and Frank Miller. Does this sound like a good Batman story? No, so therefore it must be a load of shit. Frank Miller does not write politically correct pansy-ass comics, so I see no reason to think that he's going to write a crappy script for a Batman movie. Besides he (Miller) seems like a man of principles, and he has already written a Batman: Year One story why should he need to re-write one of the finest Batman stories ever. All he'd need to do is adapt it a little bit, not butcher it.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:05 p.m. CST

    By the power vested in me...

    by The Gline

    I duly pronounce this review and its contents to be an obviously bogus load.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:06 p.m. CST

    oy vey!!

    by Varakor

    This review has got to be the worst, most un-thought out piece of anus stew i have ever read. It completely goes all over the place, the spelling was ugh! character detail was nil (come on there was no explanation of the joker or penguin?) and well in the immortal words of Mr. Horse: no sir, i didn't like it! I will not believe this is a review of a real first draft until there is some confirmation, because i don't think Miller would have allowed this to happen. (a black alfred? Gordon boozing and cheating on his wife? isn't he supposed to one of few straight arrows on a corrupted Gotham police force or am i mixing my bat history?). If this is a real first draft then i think this guy skimmed it rather than read the whole thing.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:18 p.m. CST


    by Weasel

    Hey, Superninja. Weasel here. No disresepct intended, man, but I really have to disagree with your take on Miller's Batman. Please understand that before Miller came along, the Batman character had devolved into an utter joke. Batman's heyday as The Dark Knight, a shadowy, two-fisted and merciless enemy of crime, was in the 1940's. By the 1950's he had already degenerated into a campy parody of himself (some of the stupidest Batman stories ever written emerged from this decade). In the early 60's he was a caped boy scout wearing the bat suit in broad daylight while rescuing kittens stuck in trees. It was the late-60's (right around the time of that horrendous T.V. show) that the character reached its nadir. Indeed, the 1960's nearly succeeded in eradicating Batman from the DC universe. It wasn't until the 1970's that Neal, Adams, Jim Aparo and a host of other writers and artists breathed life back into the character by turning their backs on campiness and exploring the legend first laid out by Bob Kane, Bill Finger and Dick Sprang years before. Frank Miller took that thread into the 80's and ran with it, bringing it to its logical conclusion: here was a Batman stripped of 60's liberal softness and fuzzy thinking, a warrior god who took the fight to the enemy and took no prisoners while doing it. Miller read the zeitgeist of the times and fashioned a character very much of those times. Batman as "a murdrous psychotic?" I think not, Superninja. In the classic "Dark Knight Returns" Miller gave his creation several telling moments of compassion with both Robin and Selina Kyle. Hardly characteristics of a sociopathic personality. Indeed, I don't think Miller went far enough with Batman (nor do the current writers). Oddly enough the best Batman character out there is not Batman, but the paranoic, ultraviolent Midnighter from Wildstorm's "The Authority." Now there's a Batman without the effin' excuses!! One last thing, guys: what is so damn difficult about translating "Batman: Year One" to the big screen? I will personally loan Warner Brothers my copy of the "Year One" trade paperback, no problem. There, in one tight little package, you have your outline, your screenplay and your storyboards all laid out for you. it's not like you have to re-invent the wheel on this thing. Y'know, my brothers, it shouldn't have to be this hard...

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 12:50 p.m. CST



    That has to be the most poorly written ANYTHING I have read in years. I can't even remember what it was about. My head hurts from trying to decipher it. What I do remember is this... CHEET is not a word. Punctuation is not a random phenomenon. Nor is capitalization. Credibility is what you get when you can present yourself in a way that seems intelligent. I therefore can not in good conscience put any credibility into what you report. Any real media organization that wants to dismiss internet sites like AICN because it's comprised of uneducated teens has all the ammunition they need thanks to kids like you. Please, for the love Christ, learn some proofreading skills. Don't treat everything like it's an email to your bud from 3rd period.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 1:14 p.m. CST

    I have just one more word on this subject...

    by Huneybee


  • Aug. 10, 2001, 1:20 p.m. CST

    this is a joke right. this has to be a joke.

    by yeah i'm a jerk!

    i hope this is a prank, but then again, i'm hoping that the ashley judd as catwoman thing is a joke too. i hate hollywood.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Hay Spuekee! Goe Hont Sum Othir Syte!

    by jollydwarf

    As redundant as this post is, this shit has got to stop! Do you guys allow these second graders to write reviews JUST TO PISS EVERYONE OFF?! It's fucking ridiculous. Here's my opinion: when you have the shittiest excuse for a writer try to convey movie news, there's no way that anyone can disassociate the actual content of the review or story from the pathetic effort of the writer. So it's going to come across worse than it deserves to be. It's comforting to see others leave posts about this, 'cause sometimes I feel that I'm being too much of a stickler. No one wants information presented in the same enthralling fashion as home appliance manuals present it, but keep some integrity. P.S. If you're going to continue to have these typo typhoons, at least get Beetlejuice (from the Howard Stern show, of course) to write. Then, like, he can 'view the movie in like two hours, dude and write it like fourty-four times in two more weeks. P.P.S. What's up with the Batman/Superman movie that I just read about elsewhere?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:44 p.m. CST

    I Am In Complete Agreement With Superninja About Miller's BATMAN

    by Buzz Maverik

    I love THE DARK KNIGHT, but I feel that YEAR ONE was only redeemable because of Mazzuchelli's art and the interesting choices for Batman's arsenal. YEAR ONE reads like someone trying to do a Miller pastiche, you know pseduo-tough without restraint (I know most of you are young, dumb and full of come but really: Selina Kyle as an OVERT domantrix? Holly? Someone at DC should have had the balls to tell Miller "no, you're not that good". If it had been direct sales like THE KILLING JOKE or THE DARK KNIGHT that would have been different but I bought mine at the fucking Safe Way for Chissakes). Plus, Miller's Batman is such a tight ass that no one could stand the character for more than a few issues unless they really wanted to feel like they're a sweet badass, which means they're afraid they're a pussy. Anybody ever read Alan Moore's SUPREME where he does '80s Supreme who calls everyone "good soldier" and no one knows what the hell he's talking about? I'm looking forward to THE DARK KNIGHT IN BREAKING TRAINING or whatever Miller's going to call it, but the worst thing about Miller's Batman isn't the work itself but the influence. Because Miller is gifted. Moore is gifted. Warren Ellis is gifted. If you're not gifted and you try to write that way, we get SHADOWHAWK and it sounds like suburban fat boys trying to sound tough and we get blood drenched panels that don't mean shit. Miller can do it, most can't. Plus, Miller's stuff isn't actually as violent as everyone remembers (much like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or the original PSYCHO). Finally, the BATMAN comics were just fine prior to THE DARK KNIGHT. Steve Englehart, Marshall Rogers, Denny O'Neill, Doug Moench and Gene Colan anyone? The image of BATMAN was fucked because of the T.V. show, which I regard as a great spoof. While I'm on a rant, I'll also defend Tim Burton's movies. Those movies are valuable because they defined the question "What's the deal with Batman's villains?" I mean, most of them don't have super-powers, so why are they super-villains. The Burton movies laid it out very well: extreme, off the scale, beyond over the top personalities.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 2:45 p.m. CST

    Dark Knight Strikes Back - No Sale

    by moira_lc

    If, by some strange,slim,incredibly sleazy chance that miserable excuse for a 1st draft was written by Frank Miller, (and I owned a comic shop) I would be cancelling my advance orders for "The Dark Knight Strikes Back" and, incidently, sobbing into my lost profit margin. I think someone wanted to see how many people would jump how high if thrown a piece of tofu and told it was the real meat. (and I am not ragging on anyone - I am obviously here jumping). I only hope that this was not a way to put forth some ideas actually being considered to catch reaction. To think that anyone would even come up with such drivel is truly depressing. ____Moira

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Thanks, Buzz

    by moira_lc

    While I would probably disagree with you about Miller's Batman, you are absolutely on target(damn, did someone let a skeet loose in here) about the pre-Miller Batman. The only person I might add to your excellent list is Jim Starlin even though he is, technically, post Dark Knight.___Moira

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Oh, bah!

    by Stormfang

    The writer of this review obviously can barely comprehend basic English. Honestly, guys, if you're gonna have someone contribute something to your site, you'd think they'd run a spellchecker on it first? As to the story itself: Someone PLEASE tell me that this whole thing is a joke?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:08 p.m. CST


    by Josey Wales

    Just thought I'd be a dick and point out that since Barbara Gordon hasn't bought a pair of shoes in 13 years, "The Killing Joke" is in fact canon and not an Elseworlds.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 4:56 p.m. CST

    I see that Milelr and Aronofsky are trying to match Burton and S

    by KingKrypton

    Looks like the rumors of Freddie Prinze Jr. as the young Batman are more plausible than we thought, eh? Because this script sucks just as badly as the last four Batman films have. Then again, I've always disliked Miller's Batman material. I am very much a student of the Bill Finger/Steve Englehart/Len Wien/Gerry Conway school of Batman--a portrayal of a man who is determined to make sure that nobody ever suffers the same tragedies that befell him, but whose thirst for retribution is balanced by compassion, humanity, and a genuine need for family. Miller, in my mind, got this wrong. He eliminated all of Batman's humanity and made him a one-dimensional violence machine, a Punisher in a Batsuit. Ever since then, Batman has been portrayed as a hateful, egotistical creep who treats his friends and loved ones like garbage. Sorry, but I don't think that's a valid interpretation. I want a Batman who can relax and enjoy the moment when called for and be driven and intense when called for. I want a Batman who loves his friends and family dearly and tries to be a good influence on them, but has trouble articulating how he feels because he's a proverbial man of few words, a strong silent type. Dini and Timm did exactly this during the Fox run of BATMAN:TAS, and it was great. (And then they dropped the ball and made Batman an obnoxious jerk when the show went to the WB, but that's beside the point.) I don't like a Batman who goes out of his way to offend/hurt Nightwing or Alfred or Robin. Miller does great creator-owned work, I'll give him that. But he has no clue how to write Batman. I cringed in horror when I heard he was involved with this film, so I'm not at all surprised that the script is apparently as bad as the review makes it out to be. Oh, and by the way, the Batman Broadway musical is still a go; Jim Steinman is still workign on it, and he recently described its opening sequence as "GUYS & DOLLS on mescaline, in a good way." Prepare to barf...

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Requiem for a Bat

    by Hardyboy

    I rented Requiem for a Dream not too long ago, and I ended up so depressed by it that it's a good thing I don't have any guns in the house and that I use an electric razor. Ever since I found out Aronofsky would be attached to another Batman film I've been cringing. . .how depressing is this thing gonna be?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 5:30 p.m. CST


    by JonQuixote

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is no one definitive Batman. Some people swear by the violence-addict presented in Dark Knight, others wonder whatever happened to Bat-Mite. Now I'm not a comic historian, and have always been more of a Marvel Boy, but when I hear Miller, I think Dark Knight, and I think cool. But it is, in no way, THE definitive version, and other takes, whether they be a noirish detective or hanging with the Super 7, are just as valid, as long as they stay true to the basic vision. *** As a writer, Miller is one of the best in regards to his narrative structure, and his ability to apply other mediums and genres to the comic book. Batman is FAR more interesting when he's seen through the eyes of a Jim Gordon or Robin. Miller is also great at taking established characters where they've never been before. But the thing about Miller, and it's both a compliment and a criticism, is that he has a real love-hate relationship with comic books, particularly comic book superheroes. Sometimes it seems like he doesn't really like them, and he can't stand a lot of the phony or unrealistic morality that comes along with them. Maybe that's why I'm a really big fan of his work, because I love superheroes and I love my comic books, but it pisses me off when a superhero can have his parents killed or his girlfriend thrown off a bridge or keep fighting the same villian every six months and watching him kill dozens, only to tie him up and take him to jail. At that point, these characters lose their humanity and instead become sermon-givers, screaming bullshit from the top of their Ivory tower. Miller acknowledges issues like these, and confronts them. So yes, his Batman is different, and yes, his characters go places we may not want them to go, but to me, that's a far better alternative than just reading adventure stories about two-dimensional characters that never grow, never evolve in the public consciousness, preserve the status quo, and pander to the audience. *** And in continued defense of the Burton movies (at least the first one), let me just say this: It may not have been the Batman we see in the comic books, and the psychology may have been different than what many people want or expect, but the Keaton/Batman was a LOT closer in psychological interpretation to what it would take for someone in a more realistic setting to put on a Bat suit and hop around the city fighting crime.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:11 p.m. CST

    There are typos and then there are dumbass-os

    by ordinarypeploe

    What the hell is herion and what is a Herion-Under World? LR

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Superninja is not a MAN.

    by Foreskin_Jones

    Just to let you know Weasel i've been reading this site for years now and have read many talkbacks. She has posted and has stated she's not a male. Just to let you know. P.S. THIS REPORT IS FAKE HARRY, PLEASE TAKE IT DOWN! This is just taking up space as I stated before this is as real as Sylvester's Stallone Facelift. Aronofsky HAS NOT finished the first draft yet.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Still, better than Joel "Pinch My Nipples" Schumacher!

    by DarthSnoogans

    But if this is an accurate review (which I seriously doubt), not even the suits at WB will allow this mess to see the inside of a movie theater. Even empty box-office whores have their standards. Just in case though, may I be the first to suggest John Saxon as Bruce Wayne? Maybe Richard Roundtree as an ass-whuppin Alfred and Joe Don Baker as (--ahem--MITCHELL!!) as Gordon?

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Leks awl git nakked and shout up herion.

    by 4N6NDB8

    I mean sweet mother of Noah freaking Webster. I don't know who this Spooky guy is, but I say screw Aronofsky and Miller. Screw the whole year one movie idea. Let's just let this clown do the rewrite with NO SPELLCHECK and NO EDITORS, have him post it here, order ourselves a big old shipment of "herion" from the Penguin and let the talkbacks roll. "Weal laff intul we dye."

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Which is WORSE? Reviewer or the SCRIPT?

    by Creep Factory

    WOW! first off what a fake, second, how fuckin PC can you GET if it's real? "OH! Lets get a black guy yea, that will show those uptight whites a thing or two and shock them!" It's just silly, like someone already said, the CHARACTER Alfred is white. Yes yes, elseworlds shmelseworlds, alfred MUST stay white and english and fatherly. And the reviewer is a class A moron, I am guseeign he is 16.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Harry, what a poor excuse for a geek you are!

    by Johnny Dagger

    Sorry, Harry, had to punk you out here. How can you call yourself a true geek, or a comic book fan, if you don't know that Killing Joke is canon? Jesus Christ, that was where Batgirl got crippled. Didn't you notice, Harry, that Babs Gordon has been a wheelchair for the past 10 years? Damn, Harry, you need to better represent for your geek brethren here. As for this script....not too thrilled to have a steppin'fetch Alfred...

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Stop the presses! Stop the presses!

    by crackerfarmboy

    If I'm not mistaken isn't Aronofsky currently working on a Sci-fi film and putting Year One on hold? I smell Bullshit! Not to metion I can't take anyone too serious when they can't type a sentence without spelling 3 third grade level words incorrectly. Have no fear batfans Frank Miller and Darren Aronofsky's movie will NOT fail you (yes I'm willing to be THAT certain). If it ever gets made it will blow us all away!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Stop the presses! Stop the presses!

    by crackerfarmboy

    If I'm not mistaken isn't Aronofsky currently working on a Sci-fi film and putting Year One on hold? I smell Bullshit! Not to metion I can't take anyone too serious when they can't type a sentence without spelling 3 third grade level words incorrectly. Have no fear batfans Frank Miller and Darren Aronofsky's movie will NOT fail you (yes I'm willing to be THAT certain). If it ever gets made it will blow us all away!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:27 p.m. CST

    Rorshach, Batman & How Tightasses Are Different Than Hardasses.

    by Buzz Maverik

    Ebonic Plague (love your name, by the way), no one, least of all me, wants Batman all friendly or whatever. But I don't believe Miller's Batman could be sustained in a monthly comic. Batman should be a hardass. A hardass wages an uncompromising war on crime. Miller's Batman, while certainly a hardass, also comes across as a tightass. A tightass is concerned with how well your shoes are shined or if you have hospital corners on your bed. (We could get into dumbasses, but we'll leave out Rob Liefeld's characters for now). Rorshach was certainly a hardass, but because Moore is a good writer (Miller's a good writer too but his faults seem greater than Moore's to me), Rorshach's tightass elements (like turning in Moloch for using the anti-cancer drug laetrile) are played for laughs. Rorshach is a tightass with other people, while wallowing in his own filth, another great character touch. Rorshach is a complex character. Moore would never stoop to creating a character to make himself or his readers feel tough. Essentially, Rorshach is a grubby, little loser and at the same time, he's a paranoid and a saint. Miller's Batman is a great character too, but for short term, limited series. As for blaming Miller for "grim 'n' gritty", you can't blame him or Moore because their work is great. But like Moore himself has said, it's the best material that has done the most damage to the medium. Because if a comic creator doesn't have the level of talent that Miller, Moore or only a handful of others have, then grim 'n' gritty is a pose. It's grim 'n' gritty and nothing else. Finally, although I love THE DARK KNIGHT and admire Mazzuchelli's work in YEAR ONE, you can't call them realistic. You have a human being dressed as a flying rodent jumping off a high rise building and not ending up street pizza? Not even the most skilled gymnast, aerialist or martial artist could do the things Miller's characters do. And that's okay. I don't read comics for realism. I read comics because they are nuts! I love comics because they are nuts! THE DARK KNIGHT was nuts in the best possible way. In my opinion, a lot of what Miller did with YEAR ONE was shock value, which is beneath him, beneath an artist of his calibre.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 10:42 p.m. CST

    Also, Jon Quixote Is Right About Burton's Batman.

    by Buzz Maverik

    I didn't find the Burton movies dark or gritty or at all realistic which is good because I'm the guy who hates realism. What they are is operatic. Weird melodrama. It's the only way you can have a guy in a bat suit on film without it being totally stupid like the Schumacher movies or the T.V. show. That's why it's so ridiculous to drop Batman into a '70s crime drama. He'd be the comedy relief, locked in a cell by Popeye Doyle, Harry Calahan, Zachary Garber or even Barney Miller. Can you imagine the jokes about the billionaire in the bat suit? Miller has recently commented on the operatic qualities of Batman, the Wagnerian qualities, which makes this '70s thing so stupid. If he wants to write THE 7-UPS or BULLIT, then he ought to do that. Sticking Batman into that is like a gag in FUZZ or something, between the real action.

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:24 p.m. CST


    by josh_r

    Oh man, please tell me that they won't make this movie, I'd rather them make no movie at all than this movie. I can see it now Marlon Wayans as Alfred and Freddie Prinze Jr.or Keanu Reeves or Tobey Maguire (since he seems to be the flavor of the month)or Matthew Lillard in the starring role of Batman. Please don't let this happen, please. Just get Keaton back he's not doing anything right now and make another sequel. This script doesn't even try to follow the original batman movie (which was and still is one of the greatest movies of all time). Please if the people who are writing this read these at all DON'T MAKE THIS MOVIE!!

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:39 p.m. CST


    by Weasel

  • Aug. 10, 2001, 11:44 p.m. CST


    by Weasel

    ...for the lowdown on Superninja's gender. I, too, have been reading her insightful and witty missives for some time but, obviously, I must have missed the most important one! Superninja, I am contrite and beg forgiveness. Humble apologies all around from the Weasel.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 12:04 a.m. CST

    Hey Buzz.

    by Foreskin_Jones

    It's not Liefeld's characters that are dumbasses it's the guy behind the guy behind the characters. Liefeld is a Hack.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 12:08 a.m. CST


    by Foreskin_Jones

    Hey Weasel, no problem.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 5:36 a.m. CST

    A 70's setting seems so abitrary. "Hey man, that's a BAD out-fi

    by JonQuixote

    The only reason to set a Batman movie in the 70's is if you have a really good Afro/Cowl joke you want to tell. Other than that, it's arbitrary, because there is absolutely NOTHING about the Bats that is 70's. It's like deciding to set a Superman movie in the 60's, and turning Jimmy Olsen into a pot-smoking hippie and Lois Lane into a bra-less Earth Mother who listens to Janis Joplin while braiding her leg hair. The only time period it makes sense to set Batman in is the 40's, when he was first created, and a noirish post-WWII thriller could be crafted. Otherwise Batman should be contemporary or he should TRANSCEND time (like the first movie which used 40's fashion, 19th Century architecture, and new millenium technology). *** Anyways, nobody REALLY reads comic books for realism, but I usually think that the more grounded the character, and the more realistic the psychology, the better chance he has of surviving and succeeding. If the characters lack human depth, and have little to no reason for their actions, then you end up with Liefield Muclefreaks who just exist to shoot guns and punch each other. *** BUT, a comic movie needs to nod to overall realism than the comic books do. Case in point: The Batarang. If the movie had him throwing it to the top of a skyscraper, people would have been rolling in the aisles. Daredevil is another example of this. I just read one of the Miller issues, where, in order to elude Iron Fist, Daredevil backflips onto the shaft of a lightpole, uses his hands to launch himself to the top of it (landing in a crouch), and then standing backflips from there on to a rooftop. If this scene is in the DD movie, there's going to be a lot of snickering. What works in freeze-frame often doesn't work in live action. Burton did recognize this, with mixed results. But regarding the psychology of Batman, he looked at the character and said, "what sort of scarred psyche does it take for a man to do this, to devote his entire life to vigilanteism and to dress up like a flying rat?" He came up with something a little different than what you get in the comic books, but no less valid. *** In my defense of Miller, I don't want to give the impression that he's perfect. I also agree that he often displays major flaws, and that his most destructive legacy was the influence he had on the next generation of comic book writers/artists, most of whom could only see the violence, and try to ape it.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 5:58 a.m. CST

    Hey, Hitman...

    by Rybock

    How are they going to get Burton back? Apparently, the guy doesn't even read comic books.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 6:41 a.m. CST

    This stupid review

    by il diabolo

    If, IF, this is a valid review, this movie will suck. I find it hard to believe the Arnofsky and Miller could massacre the characters this badly and create such a poor story line. And the fact that the person writing this "review" has no grasp of the English language or of how to spell, it just lends to the non-credibility of this "review."

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 7:03 a.m. CST


    by Scoobydo-do

    The 1970's was the greatest era in the Batman comics. Denny O'Neil and Neal Adams reinvented a tired old camp crusader and placed him in a gritty urban milieu. Miller and Aronofsky look like they'll be replicating the formula. But what I want to see is what Harry mentioned...BIG FUCK OFF SCARY EARS. Those HORNS defined Batman in the 70's like side-burns and flares did with every other cool cat in those demented disco days. I have a few reservations about the script, but they is just da bare bones, baby. Just wait for the retro-chic production, funky ass score and babes in hot-pants. I can't wait to see Bruce Wayne strutting through the streets of Gotham to a Bee-Gees number in tight white flares! OOPPS. Sorry, Mr Pedantic, I know the Bee-Gees didn't do disco until '78!!!

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Even if the 70's gave us the best Batman comics

    by JonQuixote

    that's not a reason to set the movie in the 70's. The best DD story came in '83/'84, should the movie then be set at the height of the Reagan era? The Death of Superman hit stands in the 90's, should Lois Lane be characterized in Superman Lives by her Lisa Loeb glasses and bitching about pointless existence? I can understand wanting the 70's FEEL...I think the texture of Serpico and Taxi Driver would make for a kick-ASS Batman movie, but a movie doesn't have to have bell-bottoms and disco in order to deliver that feel. That 'FEEL' is only quintisentially 70's because the directors who pioneered that approach, Friedkin, Scorsese, etc. did their best work IN the 70's. To set Batman in the 70's would just seem weird.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 10:08 a.m. CST

    The Killing Joke isn't canon?

    by son of lucas

    then why the heck is barbra gordon still in a wheel-chair?

  • looks more like theire trying to burry it for good! Alfed is black??? Bruce decides to become Batman after a car accident... then what was he doing all this time? What the hell are they trying to pull of here? Warners, I though I lost my respect for you long ago, I guess if their was anything left, well, it's all gone now! Why don't they just hand out this thing to Paul Dini, Bruce Timm and Alan Brunette and actually let them make all the decisions! Then I'd actually look foward to a Batman flick... Now it just seams like Warner's looking for a way to get rid of batman so they don't have to do any more of them!

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Batman Year 1 stinks worse than Lucifer's hole

    by dragon's teeth

    I've been a fan Of Batman for some twenty years and this continuing bastardisation of the characters is really starting to piss me off. The other movies were bad, Burton's 2 at least looked good, but this, this stinks worse than lucifer's own shite pipe. How hard can it be? Batman has survived since 1938 because the characters are solid and some 1st class writers have done fantastic things with the world Bob Kane created. Millar has been a big part of that but unfortunately as we've seen he can't write movies if his own life depended on it, or maybe he's just gone fuckin' nuts. I have never seen a bigger pile of steamin' horse shit in all my life for the reasons that are plainly obvious. A black Alfred?? No! Why? because he just isn't. Wayne manor gone, the cave moved to where subway travellers can watch Batman work and talk jive with his butler. Everthing that was great about the comic has been destroyed. Alan Moore's Killing Joke, the definitive origin of the Joker, ripped apart by a couple of talentless assholes trying to make a quick buck. The Batman franchise is dead and this won't resurrect it. Only when Warner Bros start employing people who give a shit about comic mythology, and about the characters, be they Batman Superman, Spiderman, or any of the others will they produce a decent film that will appeal to all and make money. It isn't a hard thing to do if you put a little effort into it, and if anyone from Warner's is reading this give me a shout and I show you what I mean.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 1:26 p.m. CST

    Ladies and gentlement of the Talkback, I'm just a caveman. . .

    by Village Idiot

    I slipped on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic makes me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I read post online defending the Phantom Menace, I wonder "Did little demons get inside the glowing box and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I *do* know: when Tim Burton makes a movie about Batman, it becomes more about art direction and exploring Burtons own sense of neurotic, neo-gothic fetishism and particular sense of aesthetic than it does about exploring the emotional landscape and exciting mythical thematics of an almost Jungian archetype of the American collective consciousness. Thank you.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Village Idiot all I can say is

    by MGTHEDJ

    damn you're good.-----later-----m

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 4:27 p.m. CST


    by Vessel

    "20 page fight scene?" does anyone else realize that's almost 1/3 of the average script? This is bullshit and if by some remote chance it isn't - God help us...

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Once again, back to defending Miller (sigh).

    by JonQuixote

    Ok, imagine you're a comic book writer, and pretty good at what you do. The pay is not bad, and even though you appeal to a niche market, you have a solid fan core, so you feel appreciated. And you've earned a reputation as a guy who has a knack for grit, violence, and urban landscapes, which probably comes from your absolute fascination with film noir. And then your agent calls and says, 'They want you to do Robocop 2.' A sequel to one of the greatest tongue-in-cheek sci-fi movies ever. And you think to yourself, "Robocop is science-fiction, but I deal with old-fashioned noir, and it's funny and wry, but the warranty expired on my sense of humor shortly after birth. Besides, no sequel could ever live up to the first one, since the best thing about it was the originality, not that the studio cares, because all they want to do is make a quick buck with this whore of a movie. I'm totally wrong for this." And then your agent tells you how much they're willing to pay, and it's more money than you've made in the last four years, which is pretty sweet for what is maybe three months work, not to mention the doors that might open up from this.*** The fact is that Robocop 2 would have sucked if they got Orson Wells write it. And it's not like it Black Hole sucked - it's a passable action movie, especially considering the entire creative crew from the first movie was jettisoned. But Miller was all wrong for it...he's not particularly funny, not the most socially aware writer, and very old fashioned in his approaches, whereas Robocop is futuristic social satire. Everybody has their strengths...get Hitchcock to direct American Pie 3, and you're probably not going to be too pleased with the results (although it would be...interesting).

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 6:22 p.m. CST


    by Blabbermouse

    Especially if they're talking about changing some of the character's ethnicintricinities... Anyhoo, I really liked the vignette in MASK OF THE PHANTASM where Batman is on a pre-costume trial run against truck hijackers & says something afterwards like "I was almost there Alfred, I just needed something more to intimidate them..." talk about Batman's learning curve...

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Village Idiot when you weren't thawed out you weren't greeted by

    by Foreskin_Jones

    Good job Dude, good job. I've been saying that shit for years when it comes to a property that he didn't create with the exception of Pee-Wee Herman and Ed Wood. Burton's a hack, he is only good with stuff that comes out of his imagination like Eddie Scissorhands or "Beetlejuice". When it comes to him adapting stuff it just turns into crap like "Batman Returns" and "Planet of the Apes".

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Hey Zeus Marimba!

    by Foreskin_Jones

    Another person that got something right in this talkback, that O'Reilly fellow nailed it "Dark Knight" is overrated and the sequel is a mistake. "Watchmen" is still the greatest epic comic tale only rivaled by "Marvelman" which was also written by Moore. I liked "Dark Knight" but it is NOT the best Batman tale at all that honor has to go to either "The Long Halloween" or "War on Crime". I've been reading this site since '98 and only recently have I started posting on Talkback. I don't know why I held back for all those years, you Talkbackers are an all right bunch, oh and whatever happened to Pisso The Clown? and nobody thankfully ever mentions Lane Myers in here anymore that guy was fucked up. What a cock I'am I just mentioned the fucker well if I don't say it 4 more times then he doesn't show up.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Guy Pearce as Bruce Wayne

    by RHknight

    Ok... If Aronofsky cast Guy Pearce as Wayne, it would be perfect. Could anyone else play Batman is such cool a manner. Now Gordon on the other hand is gonna be a bigger problem. If anyone should play Gordon, Its gotta be James Cromwell. But he's too damn old now. Before this sounds like a LA Confidential Reunion, lets talk about other possibilities. I don't know if Scatman Crothers is dead, but he'd play a mean Alfred... Oh wait... I just check IMDB. He is dead, but appeared as Sam on the Casablanca T.V. series??? Don Cheadle would be cool then. I really don't think Aronofsky could get off track with this project being the crazy virtuoso that he is. Just watch Requiem for a Dream if you have any doubts.

  • Aug. 11, 2001, 9:52 p.m. CST

    I got 3 words for this guy

    by Jack D. Ripper

    Learn to fuckin type. No way in HELL anyone this fuckwittingly stupid has access to highly anticipated, high-profile screenplays. Go back to the Android's Dungeon, fanboy fuck.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 8:57 a.m. CST

    The (village) Idiot obviously is ignorant of

    by JonMiller

    A little thing called Expressionist Cinema. That's what Burton's Batman films were, especially the second. Since you obviously have no idea about the subject, I wouldn't go bitching about lack of depth in Burton's Bat-films. I've read plenty of Batman comics and I've yet to see where they make any "deeper" or more valid statements on Batman's psychology. Not to say that I dislike the comics/graphic novels, but to act as if they present a main character that is deeper than Burton's films is ludicrous crap. many of the statements/thematics (the meat if you will), as I alluded to above, of Burton's films were expressed visually. It's really unfortunate that so many can't see the depth of visual filmmakers like Burton. The movies aren't lacking in depth (anybody who says that about Burton's second Bat-film, BATMAN RETURNS, just hasn't paid attention) people just aren't seeing it. You look at BATMAN RETURNS and the movie is almost overloaded with ideas and statements about the psychology of its characters--much of it is expressed to the viewer through pure visual metaphor (example: Selina Kyle being 'killed', then sewing her psyche abck together, both literally and figuratively, in the guise of Catwman, only to lose her mind further as the picture wears on and her costume/personality falls apart), and evidently it goes over quite a few heads. Y'know, if you don't understand Burton's films just say so, but don't bash them because of you're own lack of knowledge of cinema--that's just pure and simple ignorance.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Batman Returns: An Abstract Masterpiece

    by SeattleArrow

    As an ordinary action film--one designed to sell toys at McDonalds and sedate the audience with cartoon violence--Batman Returns is an awful film. Actually as just an ordinary film with the requisite ties to reality, it's still awful. The script consists of grandiose scenes tied together with plot-holes and every bit of logic in the film is badly flawed. As a dark, twisted, nearly-surreal fantasy however, Batman Returns just may be a near-masterwork. The mood and look of the film are perfect--there's no worse time to be depressed than on Christmas, and no worse place to feel that depression in than Gotham city. So are the actors--Keaton realized that the best way to play a larger-than-life character was to underplay him, and his Batman and Bruce Wayne are interesting because you sense they're always holding back. Pfeiffer's Catwoman/Selina Kyle is a terrific performance--her mood swings, sudden bursts into giggling, and sexy moodiness make up the definitive version of the character. And when she and Keaton interact you see how well they go together. These are two seriously screwed-up characters who are drawn to each other through very visible needs. There is no better scene (spoiler ahead) in the entire Batman mythos than when the two, dancing together, simultaneously learn of each other's secret identities. The music swirls as they separate and look at each other in anguish--in the realization that their lives can never be the same. DeVito's Penguin is near the same league, a performance played maximum grotesqueness and disgust. This slime drooling freak/mutant,abandoned at birth and determined to revisit his agonies on every new-born, is the most freakish villain Dickens never came up with. The Penguin is living sludge, vengeful and crude. He's nothing like the character from the comics and thank God, because the original Penguin was the most boring villain Batman ever faced.(The Batman animated series, throughout over 100 episodes tried to stick with the more traditional Penguin and Catwoman--the result is that not a single interesting episode revolves around them.) In the end,what's most interesting about this film is that though built as a standard studio moneymaker, it reaches such epic heights of twisted, grotesque fantasy that one realizes the film has turned into a much more personal vision--dark, mean-spirited(and so what if it is? who gives a damn what bothers Leonard Maltin?) and yet deeply sympathetic with its three star freaks. Batman, Catwoman, and the Penguin are all drawn together: they're all damaged people, and all are put through cycles of humiliation, disgrace, and torment. By the end Batman--unlike in all the other films--doesn't emerge triumphant, but rather battle-scarred and stoic about his misfortune. All this weirdness and darkness went down badly with the public, who found they couldn't count on the film to serve as a babysitter--they expected the film to be like all the movies that have McDonald's tie-ins, the brain-rotters so many parents would prefer for their children to see rather than risk any honest confrontations with sexuality or violence. Batman Returns isn't one of those latter films. It's a commercial film from a major studio and a cashcow. But the vacuous puerility and campiness of the sequels made in reaction to it by Joel Schumacher prove that the film touched a nerve. Batman Returns is a dark, twisted fantasy--a tragic fantasy, and a very admirable film.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Come on, really....

    by ItsOver

    For those with fire in their eyes: Come on guys this is obviously b.s. Someone is having fun writing up every fanboys worst nightmares while parodying Harry's writing style. I'm surprised Harry fell for it. Another topic: Am I the only one who doesn't want to see a Serpico / French Connection Batman. Sure, certain elements would be cool, but this "grim n' gritty to the extreme" ideal seems sort of pointless when the main character dresses in tights. I think a bit of self-deprecating humor and/or general weirdness is needed.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 1:03 p.m. CST

    The (jon) Miller is obviously ignorant of. . .

    by Village Idiot

    My inability to comprehend big words. Expression-who-ism? You're right, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. For all I know, you could be talking about an art movement of some kind that emphasizes the portrayal of inner psychological forces through the exaggeration or stylization of reality. Or you could even be referring more specifically to this tendency in film, from Caligari to the tendencies of Dmytryk's RKO work, and even some flashes of Fuller. What was this thing again? Apparently you think that Tim Burton's use of it is so deft, that it excuses the meandering of the presentation of the actual story itself. If I knew what you were talking about, I would disagree. I would suggest that the use of expressionist techniques in the Batman films tend more to reflect Tim Burton's personal sensibilities than they do that of a coherent reflection of the characters'. Futhermore, no amount visual artistry, no matter how adamantly one claims that it actually does reflect the inner-state of the characters, con compensate when the manifest portrayal of the characters are so weak and ultimately arbitrary. Moreover, a more disturbing aspect of your post is a completely misguided elitist snobbery, that seems to suggest that failure to appreciate the Batman's films is born of ignorance. Shame on you. THAT is ludicrous, and more a reflection of ignorance than any criticism you're liable to find on this site. (And that's saying something.)

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Village Idiot, Will you please be my friend?

    by Huneybee

    'Cause, damn, I sure don't want you as an enemy...yip yip yip yip...WHAT was THAT? Someone just ran past me whimpering liked a spanked puppy!____A Bee Grinning Like An Idiot ;)

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 10:09 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    Make that, "no disrespect, woman." Yeah, I know Batman was looking all stank before Miller came along. And Miller made Batman the character he is today. Unfortunately, it's taken awhile for people to actually BUILD off the Miller characterization instead of just imitating it. I'm biased because I like what Batman has become in the comics more than what Miller presented. Miller is really cinematic. His Batman is really cool, but strikes me as somewhat impersonal.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by superninja

    I have some reading ahead of me for tomorrow. I skimmed over the posts (because it's late), but there are some interesting arguements going on.**** JonQuixote...the problem with Burton is that if you place Batman next to his other works, he's not doing anything new or different. He's making Batman one of his strange outcasts the audience is supposed to empathize with. This character exists in every one of his films. He projects himself into the movies. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I like most of Tim Burton's works, and the Batman movie is pretty damn entertaining, but it still isn't Batman. He made Batman a love story. Batman doesn't need a love story. There is plenty of material there. Batman and Sleepy Hollow, Edward Scissorhands, have a lot in common. Same story, just changing up the themes. Batman is just a different animal as far as I'm concerned.****Buzz...Thank you. I would not want to have to read Miller's Batman ongoing. It might work for a movie, but I worry that if he does the pure asshole Batman that the comics might follow suit. The guy is already a big enough jerk, and it looks like Rucka & Co. are looking to tear him down with the Bruce Wayne: Fugitive storyline.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 10:39 p.m. CST

    I like the fact

    by dianga

    that the Village Idiot tries to give a some half-assed lecture on Expressionism yet misses the point of the Expressionitic movement in film. Namely that the STYLE he slams in Burton's Batman films IS the substance - i.e. the point. Then he criticizes Burton for giving *his* take on Batman, instead of the one Village Idiot deems as 'real' (whatever that may be) somehow forgeting that artistic interpretation is the point of this character that's had countless revisions over his six decades - basically criticizing Burton for not doing what he, Village Idiot, wants, which, is quite obviously, complete hypocrisy and undermines his own (flawed) argument. But I guess that's just the typical response of an obsessive fanboy that transposes himself onto his comic heroes. And then, to top it off, there's the hypocrisy of criticizing someone for critizing him over one of his lacking critiques/attacks (whatever you do, don't question the almighty Idiot :p). Amazing.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 10:50 p.m. CST

    When are comic book fans going to realize..

    by dianga

    that there's more than just the Batman they deem as 'real'? Yeah, the first two Batman films were Burton's spin on the character, but there's nothing wrong with that - he was just following in the footsteps of the artists that came before him. His is just one of countless interpretations, no more or less valid than any other. It's all just personal taste when it comes to Batman, 'cause there certainly is no 'universally real' version out there. This thread, and a great many others, demonstrates the diversity of the Batman character that has sustained him as an icon over the last 60+ years. I'm still trying to figure out why so many of my comic book brethren have such trouble with this concept.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Yes! Exactly

    by Jimmy_Kirk_

    Great post, dianga, that's exactly right. If you don't like an interpretation, fine, but why all this bullshit about Burton betraying Batman just because his vision was different than that of some fans? Some comic book nuts can be such bores and the craziest part is that they don't even seem to understand the characters they're so obsessed with.

  • Aug. 12, 2001, 11:25 p.m. CST

    One other thing

    by Jimmy_Kirk_

    Maybe they should put themselves in a director's shoes (Schumacher doesn't count) and realize that their ideas for the character would be no more accepted by other comic book zealots if they were ever so fortunate(?) as to put out a film about Batsy. It seems that everybody has their own idea about what Batman is...that's why it won't ever be possible to make everybody happy (if you do that you're probably doing something wrong). Anyhoo, long live Batman in his many varied forms!

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 8:11 a.m. CST

    The proof is in the pudding.

    by White_Noise

    I enjoyed the war (of barely comprhensible) words between JonMiller and Village Idiot. Still I think JM makes the more idiotic point of the two. All of the film school and college literature definitions in the world only serve to group things together as a point of reference. Things like film and books (of course I include comic books) are successful if they entertain people. Sure that's subjective, so let's say 'entertain the vast majority of an audience who might enjoy them and even a piece of an unintended audience'. Then you scholarly types can sit back and place them in whatever thematic or stylistic ghetto you want. Still, even the unwashed masses know whether they were enjoyable or not. Burton's Batman movies came close to succeeding in that they caught the themes that the core audience was interested in and brought a breathtaking style, but they missed in that his personal interests lie in the dark. Here I go plumbing deeper than I have the plunger for, but I believe most of Batman's fans love the character as a hero. He 'out darks' the dark. He's the nightmare that rescues us from our nightmare. It's a double negative. A bat-film can be too dark. That's where Burton's fixation with the villians derailed an otherwise great attempt. I think if there is any kernel of reality in this lame script review it will suffer the same fate. Schumaker was undone by his fixation with... well... you know. Homosexual fantasies really don't do anything to put the spotlight on the characters heroism. Until somebody finds a way to merge the dark, gritty world that Batman lives in and dominates with a true, three dimensional hero, we won't see a good Batman movie.

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 9:14 a.m. CST

    But that's just the thing

    by TeddyBearTerror_

    Well, frankly, I thought Village Idiot's last post was quite a bit worse than JonMiller's. At least JM seemed to have some sort of coherent point, VI's diatribe was just pompous blather (moreso than with Miller) without any real central point (well, boyond "Tim Burton sucks!", that is). Both were pretty full of hot air, but I do find that Batman Returns has quite a bit of depth to be found upon repeat viewings.****But back to my original reason for posting this, which was that in my mind, Batman isn't some kind of hero, but actually a near-psychotic vigilante of questionable morals. It's pretty obvious that was Burton's vision also, and that's what made the character so intersting to me. Certainly, as far as I'm concerned, Keaton's performance as a disturbed psycho was the most intersting part of Burton's two Bat-films, and was at the center of what made them work. Moriarty wrote a good review of Batman Returns that pointed out just how much it *was* about Batman. I should dig it up and post it here, it's a good read.****I think the best point made on here was by dianga. Namely that there's just no way to make everybody happy with a single interpretation of the character. There are just too many different opinions on what Batman is about. accounting for it.

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Moriarty's Batman Returns review

    by TeddyBearTerror_

    Strap in, kids. I

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Lack of heroism? That's why Burton's Batman was great!

    by Mr.Roboto3012

    Yeah I agree with TeddyBearTerror_ that what made Burton's Batman work was that the title character wasn't really a hero at all. That's what made it interesting to me. It wasn't about some boy scout trying to be a hero, it was about some really screwed up guy that had to work his psychological problems out on a nightly basis with his bizarre fetish. I think that works alot better than Batman as a Superman-type. The character wouldn't have been as layered and interesting if he had been a straight hero. And I think Burton's version was true to the original intent of the character; it was really an adaptation of Bob Kane's original version of the Batman (with some Miller and Moore thrown in), circa 1939 (before things got toned down) as a vengeful vigilante. And, damn, can't forget Moriarty's great review of BR! Couldn't agree more.

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Can you feel the love tonight?

    by Village Idiot

    Pompous blather?!? I

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Good Lord

    by TeddyBearTerror_

    Village Idiot, do you ever get sick of your own pointless blather? Jesus! God, you'd think Burton had raped your mother or something...oh, wait, for a comic book nut like yourself Burton's interpretation was much worse, right? I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the BS in your post (subjective pissiness), but on the point of the 'real' Batman or whatever, your argument makes no sense. You know why? Because, unlike Superman, Batman has been way too many different things over the years - from vigilante to superher to camp figure and and and on - for one interpretation to ever be more valid than another outside subjective opinion. The version drawn out in YOUR head is no more valid than the one in mine or (gasp) somebody like Tim Burton's. Those are just the facts, there will never be one single version that makes all groups happy, and as siad before, no version is more valid than any other. A guy on a Talkback telling everybody else what Batman is about (the only valid version being the one in your head)...please, get over yourself. Or, really, get a life.

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Same great character, same tired mistakes

    by supermonkey_8

    While the writer of this review needs to invest in some Strunk and White, the illness that he portends for the new Batman installment (no under new management) is a tragedy. Personally, I think a good '60's-'70's police-melodrama style (I just saw the last half of McQueen's 'Bullitt' last night, but thinking "French Connection" or "Serpico", etc) would be an excellent genre type against which to frame the Year One story. Again, the principal draw for me being the OJT Bruce Wayne required to become the Batman, even after the years of formal cross-discipline schooling/training. Plus the depth of character allowed in that genre, the focus on the individual "troubled cop". But, chiefly, I think the reality of the character has still never been adequately exploited, and yet would prove the most compelling aspect for the theatergoer. If the director and actor can realize on film the human dimension of this guy's tragedy-driven, intensely personal but very martyr-ish, unwinnable holy war on an unchangeable societal reality; if you can see what the child/teen/young adult Bruce Wayne sacrifices emotionally, mentally, physically to make himself this indomitable man-machine; then you've got an honest-to-god movie. Serious teen angst, here! I think that once you establish the depth of Wayne's trauma-induced psychosis, the rest of the story elements seem less and less absurd. Why does he dress up like a bat? Because he wants to mess with people's minds, and he's crazy. Why does he have all this shit in a cave under his house? Because he wants to keep it all on the DL, and he's crazy. How can he spend all this $$$ on black-market weapons, specially modified vehicles, advanced computer equipment, etc? Because his rich-ass parents' murders left him incredibly wealthy, he's very clever and has this wierd obsession, and oh yeah, he's f-ing crazy. Add to that basic assumption the facts that this guy is extraordinarily bright and hyper-educated, super-wealthy, and yet relentless, wholly motivated (to the point of obsession or even split-personality) to right the wrong he suffered as a young child. Throw in the spiritually-linked Bat identification aspect (as Miller does in DKR) and then let it fly. There are real reasons for the longevity of this 60-yr old in tights. He has elements of Shakespearean characters, Don Quixote, the Count of Monte Christo, the Scarlet Pimpernel, even Jesus, and embodies some major themes in the history of western lit. And yet, we keep getting Caesar Romero, the utility belt's Bat Mouse Compartment, and Joel Schumacher. That's been so tired for 30 years, why do we need to rehash that? I just watched part of "Batman and Robin" and yet again I felt the urge to retch. What steaming load of cat crap! The dialogue alone should be punishable by death! I think Aaronofsky and Miller together could pull it off, if they can resist the inevitable temptation to camp up the character and setting, as they have in this draft. Make it feel real, make the character as compelling as the comic has managed to do, and the audience will respond--just like they have for the last 60 years. Diatribe ends. Whew.

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 3:28 p.m. CST

    My capitulation.

    by Village Idiot

    Teddy. Teddy, Teddy, Teddy. Ok, I get it: You don

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 4:31 p.m. CST

    And for those of you who don't mistake thoughtful wring for blat

    by Village Idiot

    Many people look to movies as the definitive expression of experience and creativity, even if the creativity is drawn from another artistic source, like comic books. We will always have our comic books, sure, but more people will have the movie, and because of this, the movie takes on a greater significance, often the mantle of an "official" interpretation. It stands to reason that fans of the source material will be upset if they feel the movie contradicts some of that source material, especially if they feel that what is lost is integral to their understanding of the character. Not only will they be unable to see the character they expect in the already discussed

  • Aug. 13, 2001, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Spooky... Do You Hate Aronofsky?

    by Mr. Profit

    You just totally dissed him. What if the script you read was just a phoney? What if Warner Bros. pulled a Kevin Williamson and leaked a phony script to your source? All the stuff you described pretty much made me laugh. Alfred being black, I'm no racist but that was a total joke. Another thing, why were you hating on Clint Mansell's score? The "Requiem For A Dream" score was great. One more thing before I go, at least the film is not comming From that wackadoo that put nipples on the bat suit and had Chris O'Donnel's schlong all up in our faces. Give Warner Bros. credit for trying to reinvent the series they totally screwed up.

  • Aug. 14, 2001, 4:15 a.m. CST

    For all your ranting, you still ignore the point

    by TeddyBearTerror_

    The point being that there is no centrally correct version of Batman. Period. We all have our own idea about what Batman is, and considering all the MANY varied interpretations, how can one version make all happy? How can a single interpretation 'get' Batman 'right' when there are so many different opinions about what the character is about? When there have been so many versions, how can one be picked as somehow more valid than all the rest? It's impossible, and that's why the only thing a creator can do is follow his or her own vision. You don't liike Burton's Batman? No big deal, but just because you have a different idea about what the character is about doesn't make your ideal Batman any more valid than Burton's. I really don't see how somebody can exactly follow the comic book when the comic book has given us so many different versions over the years. I mean the comic has violated it's own history many times, rewriting the character, and many times completely changing him with the times. The Batman is one of the best examples of comics cannibalizing their own continuity and history. Anybody who's looked over the Batman character's history knows that there are many different variations on the character, and that alone PROVES that Batman is open to interpretation. In the case of Batman, you can pick and choose from the source material and mold it into what you please, but there is no way to translate the definitive version because there isn't one. You and I have different ideas about what the Batman character is. Are either of us wrong? No. But you are wrong in your assertion that only the version(s) you prefer is 'real'. The character's history, all by itself, disproves that baseless assertion. You can refute this from now until doomsday, but in order to do that you have to ignore the character's schizoid hsitory...basically violating your own argument.

  • Aug. 14, 2001, 9:49 a.m. CST

    Well, now that we've put our guns away. . .

    by Village Idiot

    First of all, nothing I have written on this Talkback has been a rant. If you want a rant, check out a post by The Warrior. Really. I haven't used a single exclamation mark. Secondly, since this story has been taken off the front page, this will be my last post here. Thirldy, Teddy Bear Terror, I never made the claim that there is one "real" interpretation of Batman. Check through my posts, and you'll never see me use that term, or even suggest that there is one absolutely definitive version (although I do think that an "event movie" like Batman was does tacitly lay claim to it in the minds of many). What I do feel is that some key aspects of the character in Burton's interpretation were tweaked or ignored, and I feel that this is clearly to the movie's detriment. Burton got the names of the characters right. He provided interesting images (which is surprising because he doesn't storyboard). He got the look of the costume pretty well (even though Batman can't move without looking as though he has whiplash). He even improved on the Batmobile. But he chose not to include Batman's relationship with Gordon. He forced an intimate relationship with Vicki Vale. He made the Joker the muderer of Batman's parents. His Wayne is befuddled one moment, manic the next: a choice that I've never seen in any other interpretation. I am willing to concede that this may not necessarily be all Burton's fault: the screenplay was scriptdoctored to death; Peters as the big boss, had a hand in things; and the actors improvised many of their own lines, and even changed scenes. (All of this is documented in an excellent book which is a scholarly history of Batman, complete with deconstuctions etc.). My argument on this point is that the film as presented is a mess, and that he chose the wrong aspects of Batman to incorporate, change, or ignore; especially given that the interpretation most readily available at the time (1980s Batman) had much to offer. He focused on the visuals, but was *way* too sloppy with the narrative and it shows. Again, we agree that there is no absolute interpretation, and that Burton's prerogative was ultimately to reinterpret as he saw fit. However, the interpretation that we're given is crappy and unsatisfying, or at least not as satisfying as it could have been even for you, Dianga and Jon Miller. And maybe even Jon Quixiote. Nah, not Jon Quixote.

  • Aug. 14, 2001, 7:01 p.m. CST

    You can talk around the issue

    by TeddyBearTerror_

    and you can do it well, but even you can't deny the central point here. It was Burton's right, as the film's director, to give his vision of the character. Not mine, not yours, not Frank Miller's, or whichever Kane version. And seeing as how Batman, as you admit, has no definitive interpretation, that's perfectly fine. You didn't like it, some of us did. No big deal either way. But there's nothing beyond your subjective opinion, or mine, to this issue. You didn't like Burton's vision for Batman but that certainly doesn't make his vision 'wrong' in any way. No version's any more 'real' than another, and as such, Burton's is just one of many varied interpretations. We each can pick and choose our favorites, but I really don't see how one can be villified as wrong when the Batman character has the history that he does.****Now, on a slightly different but related note, it's interesting that Burton's Batman Returns is a far better representation of his vision because he was *allowed* the freedom to give pretty much his full vision without interference from producers or studio heads, and it's a better movie than Burton's original effort because of it. Basically what I'm saying is that, yes, Burton's vision could have been better than what was shown in the first film, and that was demonstrated by the far superior sequel where he was unleashed upon the material. This even can be applied to the Expressionism argument in that Batman Returns used its style as substance (as was mentioned earlier) far better than the first, tamer attempt - to put it *very* mildly. You were saying earlier that it would be ludicrous to suggest the first film used Expressionism to add anything beyond style - well, I'd say that Batman Returns does, quite obviously and definitively, what you say the first film didn't on the Expressionism front. All because Burton was allowed far freer reign the second time around. Just something to think about.

  • Aug. 15, 2001, 6:07 p.m. CST


    by BEARison Ford

    i noticed comics2film printed a story ( under 8/14/01) saying that they had contacted frank millers reps who said the script review on AICN last week was a hoax. i emailed harry about this twice requesting he put up a retraction of some sort considering how awful that script/review was and i have yet to get an answer. is this a pride issue or whats going on? i think harry at least owes it to frank m, darren a, and the batman fans. this also begs the question that if Comics2Film could debunk the story, why couldnt harry? i thought he supposedly doublechecks every story he posts.

  • Aug. 15, 2001, 7:42 p.m. CST

    who wrote this review?

    by ben wa

    Were you drunk or something? All I can say is "Whachu talkin' about, Willis?"

  • It&#39;s not even funny... look i&#39;m not going to bore and write a shit load (which i&#39;m capable of) but will try keep it short and quick. All Batman movies after the amazing "Batman Returns" have been a total failure. the reason is simply that the new director Joel dickface directed a movie in such a way that Batman was smthn to laugh at, than admire and be interested in. Tim Burton&#39;s Batman films developed an amazing image and feeling... that of a terrifying dangerous non-talkative batman, acted out by Michael Keaton as well (the only suitable actor for the part) who is amazing. SOmthing else i noticed was the terrible choice of music and sets which were awful; in brief they Joels films were jokes.. Burton should bring Batman back to life at the cinemas, to keep on interesting us fans.. B@TM@N F@N@TIC Mel Akas

  • Oct. 20, 2002, 3:19 p.m. CST


    by KneelBeforeZod

    this is still funny! CHEETS!!!!!!

  • Feb. 26, 2004, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Drink,Screw,,talks to batman.... HAHAHAOMGHAHAOW!!

    by IAmJacksUserID

    Bestest artical evAR!!!11

  • July 12, 2005, 11:22 p.m. CST

    Aren&#39;t we all glad Nolan stepped in?

    by dr_dreadlocks

    Aronofsky&#39;s great, but hot damn would this be shit in comparison.

  • Oct. 18, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Fuckin&#39; Last.

    by Man-in-the-Box

  • Dec. 28, 2005, 7:59 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

  • Dec. 28, 2005, 7:59 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

  • Dec. 28, 2005, 7:59 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

  • Dec. 28, 2005, 7:59 p.m. CST


    by DennisMM

  • May 5, 2006, 11:46 a.m. CST

    I just realized... moviemack is Spooky

    by mortsleam

    That&#39;s why he never liked Batman Begins, he was still smarting from the "CHEETS" thing becoming a catchphrase, forever solidifying his stupidity.

  • July 7, 2006, 1:27 p.m. CST

    This classic never gets old!

    by ComputerGuy68

  • Jan. 25, 2007, 4:35 a.m. CST

    AICN Classic Literature Revival Series Presents...

    by BannedOnTheRun

    Katch-Phrase Klassics!

  • Jan. 26, 2007, 12:31 a.m. CST

    I woulda liked to have seen it

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    all the same...i cant imagine that it would have equaled the fountain in scope or quality.

  • Jan. 26, 2007, 12:35 a.m. CST

    but i never knew where

    by s0nicdeathmonkey

    has a beer and cheats on his wife came from, until just now

  • Feb. 20, 2007, 4:01 p.m. CST


    by instant_karma

    Maybe Frank Miller really does hate Batman.

  • May 1, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    thebearovingian has completed his pilgrimage

    by thebearovingian

    Here, in this hallowed spot so many years ago, the catchphrase was born. I'm home.

  • May 8, 2008, 4:47 a.m. CST

    Freakish to think

    by Boromir

    it's been almost seven years that I've been reading about beering and cheeting at AICN.

  • Dec. 15, 2008, 7:20 a.m. CST


    by The Amazing G


  • Dec. 29, 2008, 3:57 p.m. CST

    so guessing this was a fake review...

    by jbristow

    still, many plot points described did wind up in Nolan's 2 Bat films...with the exception of the Penguin. Maybe that means Penguin is next... <p> I hope not. <p> Made up or no, that image of the Joker on the roof of the Police HQ, staring at the lit batsignal, waiting to ambush Batman would make a great final tease at the end of the next movie.

  • Sept. 5, 2009, 5:32 p.m. CST

    This was perhaps the greatest of all AICN memes

    by savagedave

    Excepting maybe Hulk Hogan as the bad guy.

  • May 14, 2010, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by Darth Busey

    This isn't just a statement. Its a mandate on HOW TO LIVE ONE'S LIFE.

  • Oct. 1, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Hulk Hogan as a bagguy meme? WHere?

    by orcus

  • April 8, 2012, 7:55 a.m. CST

    love a bit of cheeting

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

  • April 21, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    Another lesson in aicn history.

    by adeceasedfan

    My education goals are very low.

  • Aug. 10, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST

    This and Tomboy Beanpole are my favorites

    by martinprince

    there were some good ones though...