Concerning Chris Nolan's revisioning...

[dutchmouse]

...of a world-famous comic book character, I think he captured exactly what would constitute as a believable Batman. As of now there is much debate on who will be the next baddie in the 3rd Nolan Batman film. As we all know, most of the other bad guys in the Batman-iverse wouldn't be ideal in keeping the feel of the Chris Nolan vision

Comments

[dutchmouse]

Oh, now you're just being ridiculous. ;)

[catsnightmare]

That gawddamned silenced Remington was full of more bullshit than a silenced revolver that needs air to fire in space with bullets sprayed with Teflon to pierce armor better. It fucked that whole movie for me.

[dutchmouse]

Hey, Brian. :)

The movie was based on the book by Cormac McCarthy. I don't think Cormac, a Pulitzer prize winner, would write a book and willy-nilly make that shit up. He did his research. Writers have to do their research or else they put their credibility at risk.

This link might help clarify the myth vs. credibility:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071124165647AAJ8GV3

And a URL such as this: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6374718.html

No doubt the movie might have stretched the idea of a silenced shotgun for visual effectiveness, but not by much.

Take comfort. The movie is no longer "fucked" for you. :)

[catsnightmare]

Yeah sure they're possible now. But not 30 years ago and sure as hell not that small.