Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
The official The Dark Knight Rises thread...
Shallow:
--- Quote from: M Dogg on January 24, 2011, 08:00:49 AM ---
The Batman universe is one that so far in the movies is not hard to follow. If this is the end of Bruce Waynes younger years, you can easily set up his older years. Robin does not become part of the Batman story until Batman is older anyways. The next trilogy can focus on the Robins, from Dick Grayson and his eventual rebellion, to Jason Todd and his death, to Tim Drake and his role as the best Robin. In there you'd Batgirl who evenually become paralyzed and photos given to Commissioner Gordon in a way to try to make him insane. It does not have to be a complete reboot, Just reference these movies as the origin, and go from there.
--- End quote ---
My point is that once you go the 3 Robins route or anything like that the entire Nolan tone has to go away. You simply cannot keep his style with the intro of Robin, and Nolan knows that; which is why won't bring Robin in.
So if you have a new Bruce Wayne, a Director, and a new style, whether you like it or not it's a reboot. You can try and say otherwise but it still is. Batman Forever even had Burton on board and you could still argue reboot because of how different it was from the last two. Where X-3 changed directors, but not direction. The new Bat films don't have to make you forget the Nolan films existed but they could be enjoyed and fully appreciated with out ever seeing the Nolan trilogy. Unlike something like Star Wars, where the new trilogy has to be seen after the old trilogy to get what you're seeing. Because no one that has not seen the old films can appreciate just how bad the new films were.
Look at Batman the Animated series; it was entirely it's own entity and based off a lot of Batman entities and never really re-established Batman or set an origin in play, but it was a reboot of the character. It was not someone else's Batman animated on TV. So Nolan's Batman and who ever takes Batman in 5 to 10 years will be very different Batmen, but it is still possible to keep them in the same loose continuity that comics have Batman in. I'll simply know better. What I mean by that is if you try and say something in the new trilogy doesn't make sense because of something in the old trilogy then you're better off trying to find continuity in the 20 seasons of the Simpsons. Because Bart being in the 4th grade for 20 years will make more sense than this Batman and the new Batman being the same Batman.
JohnnyL:
--- Quote from: Shallow on January 24, 2011, 11:37:39 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg on January 24, 2011, 08:00:49 AM ---
The Batman universe is one that so far in the movies is not hard to follow. If this is the end of Bruce Waynes younger years, you can easily set up his older years. Robin does not become part of the Batman story until Batman is older anyways. The next trilogy can focus on the Robins, from Dick Grayson and his eventual rebellion, to Jason Todd and his death, to Tim Drake and his role as the best Robin. In there you'd Batgirl who evenually become paralyzed and photos given to Commissioner Gordon in a way to try to make him insane. It does not have to be a complete reboot, Just reference these movies as the origin, and go from there.
--- End quote ---
My point is that once you go the 3 Robins route or anything like that the entire Nolan tone has to go away. You simply cannot keep his style with the intro of Robin, and Nolan knows that; which is why won't bring Robin in.
So if you have a new Bruce Wayne, a Director, and a new style, whether you like it or not it's a reboot. You can try and say otherwise but it still is. Batman Forever even had Burton on board and you could still argue reboot because of how different it was from the last two. Where X-3 changed directors, but not direction. The new Bat films don't have to make you forget the Nolan films existed but they could be enjoyed and fully appreciated with out ever seeing the Nolan trilogy. Unlike something like Star Wars, where the new trilogy has to be seen after the old trilogy to get what you're seeing. Because no one that has not seen the old films can appreciate just how bad the new films were.
Look at Batman the Animated series; it was entirely it's own entity and based off a lot of Batman entities and never really re-established Batman or set an origin in play, but it was a reboot of the character. It was not someone else's Batman animated on TV. So Nolan's Batman and who ever takes Batman in 5 to 10 years will be very different Batmen, but it is still possible to keep them in the same loose continuity that comics have Batman in. I'll simply know better. What I mean by that is if you try and say something in the new trilogy doesn't make sense because of something in the old trilogy then you're better off trying to find continuity in the 20 seasons of the Simpsons. Because Bart being in the 4th grade for 20 years will make more sense than this Batman and the new Batman being the same Batman.
--- End quote ---
I agree with the points you're making here. I guess I just tend to think of reboots as movies that start the continuity over. "Rebooting them," I guess you'd say. But if you're talking about a different director bringing his own vision to a Batman film and not necessarily dealing with any of the events that happened in the Nolan films but not erasing them either, I'm totally fine with that. I just don't have that much interest seeing another Batman origin story, being that it's been covered in several different films now. That's part of my problem with this new Spider-man movie, although maybe if they make this one more like the comic it would be worth it. Regarding Batman though, even with the "Year One" screenplay that Aronofsky and Miller developed, I think at this point I would rather them try to do a movie that tells a different Batman story than the origin.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: JohnnyL on January 24, 2011, 12:51:01 PM ---
I agree with the points you're making here. I guess I just tend to think of reboots as movies that start the continuity over. "Rebooting them," I guess you'd say. But if you're talking about a different director bringing his own vision to a Batman film and not necessarily dealing with any of the events that happened in the Nolan films but not erasing them either, I'm totally fine with that. I just don't have that much interest seeing another Batman origin story, being that it's been covered in several different films now. That's part of my problem with this new Spider-man movie, although maybe if they make this one more like the comic it would be worth it. Regarding Batman though, even with the "Year One" screenplay that Aronofsky and Miller developed, I think at this point I would rather them try to do a movie that tells a different Batman story than the origin.
--- End quote ---
Like I said before, Raimi's Spiderman was so bad in my eyes that I really want a reboot. It was completely out of touch with teens and that's what Spider-man is in an origin story.
The current Batman origin story will stand up for a couple decades, but as society changes the 2005 film will begin to look very dated to new audiences and kids and teens that want to better relate with Batman will need a new film. And it may be completely different than the current one, depending on how action films look in 2005. Imagine a serious toned action film about Batman was filmed in the 60s, and how it would look to us as kids in the 80s or 90s. The same thing will happen. But no, we don't need it now. And since we've never had a film of a Gotham with a fully establish Batman who has root in the city's crime fighting history I think it is time for it. And yes, these are the best films, the Nolan ones, to build off that history.
But I'd rather have an amazing completely reworked origin film than a second rate trilogy built off this one. Of course there is no reason both couldn't be done. I know Warner doesn't want to over-saturate the Bat. But if the film was different enough from the Nolan films and still amazing I see no reason why it couldn't be made and released. It would have to be a more fantasy based world and shot in a very different way, but then you wouldn't need it to be an origin. If Robert Rodriguez released a film that looked like Sin City in color, albeit dark colors, and had it be something along the lines of No Man's Land, Broken City, Hush, or even Batman being made in public and sent to Arkham and have to escape to stop whatever villain sent him there and figure out a way to convince Gotham he isn't Batman, I'd be okay with all that. If the films were good.
white Boy:
^ i liked spiderman 1, but couldn't stand 2 (even though everyone liked it, and it was unanimously looked at as the best of the 3) and the 3rd was a joke. i see what you mean, i checked out that spectacular spiderman and thats what you mean when you mean getting in touch with kids, no?
Shallow:
--- Quote from: white Boy on January 25, 2011, 05:27:55 AM ---^ i liked spiderman 1, but couldn't stand 2 (even though everyone liked it, and it was unanimously looked at as the best of the 3) and the 3rd was a joke. i see what you mean, i checked out that spectacular spiderman and thats what you mean when you mean getting in touch with kids, no?
--- End quote ---
The cartoon? More or less. I wouldn't an exact translation to film, but I want to feel that a teenage Spiderman isn't older than me, and Tobey Maguire is older than me by 7 years. And I wasn't even a teen anymore when the first Spidey came out.
on a side note I just realized that Tobey is a full year older than Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb, but they seem like old men and Tobey still looks like a young guy. Not sure why I mentioned that. It just feels weird to think about it that way.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version