Quote: r3x29yz4a said: You're mixing your arguments and getting confused. First you're agnry that they're changing things, then you're mad that the killer isn't "faceless."
Uh....Losing the faceless killer is "changing things".
It's perhaps the most realistic and interesting origin there is, but Nolan junked it in favor of ninjas and an all knowing token love interest.
Quote: The idea of the faceless killer wasn't until Zero Hour, up till then (for over 40 years) Joe Chill was the killer.
Actually, the working idea was around since O'neil's time and even Mike Barr, the resurrecter of Chill expressed to some degree the "faceless killer" variable in Year 2 and how it effected Bruce when he was going to off him with his own gun.
And as for the forties storyline, Batman himself never actually knew who Joe Chill was for decades after his parents were murdered by him. And even when he did figure out who he was, nothing was ever actually finalized. Just implied.
Quote: Second, my main issue was that this movie shows why he became Batman, the logic of dressing up and fighting crime as opposed to him just dressing up for no other reason then his parents died like in the other movies.
And I completely disagree. Even though the other movies screwed up his origin as well, they at least kept what Nolan/Goyer decided to do away with--Which was the most logical development for why Bruce would cast on a Bat-suit. For every Bat-movie (and even in every era of the Bat-comics), there's an in depth psycho-analysis based on events he experienced that lead to his unique form of vigilantism. I find the movie creates a slippery slope in saying that he would dawn a Bat-suit since it's more realistic for him to just continue trying to kill people who come off as criminal.
