West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: DEKO on February 11, 2010, 03:34:59 AM
-
(http://www.virginmedia.com/newsfeeds//11586/2010/02/11/bs2bs95085batman_returns_once/e4580df6cd41c8ad9b8d469e19e5611c1265821556_200x200.jpg)A third Batman film has been confirmed. Chris Nolan revealed the superhero movie was in the beginning stages of creation while in an interview with the New York Times, following rumours his brother Jonah and David Goyerm were working on the script. Discussing Jeff Robinov, the Warner Brothers president, 'The Dark Knight' director Chris said: "He is trying not to cling to the things that have worked in the past." As yet no casting details have been confirmed, and it is unknown if Christian Bale will return as the caped superhero.
However, it has previously been revealed Chris would play a mentoring role on the next Superman movie, although he will not direct it.
In addition to a third Batman instalment, which could be released as early as 2011, there are also plans to shoot a Wonder Woman film.
Fucking dope news! I don't care much for that Superman/Wonder Woman shit... but a new Batman in the works is fucking great news! ;D :o It just made my day! ;)
-
I'm confident they'll get Bale back for the third one, as he signed a three picture deal.
-
I'm confident they'll get Bale back for the third one, as he signed a three picture deal.
Bale will take it, that's where his money's at.
not to mention it's the most successful Batman films of all time.
i hope this drops like Summer 2011.
-
Yeah Bale will definitely do this third film at least. He must be aware that maybe along with American Psycho the Batman role will be his main legacy and most recognised career highlight.
The Dark Knight was obviously superb so I'm confident this one will be too. I wonder whether it'll follow similar 'bad guy' roles as the originals ones following on from Ledger's reprisal of the Joker. For example, will this third film have a 'Penguin' or 'Riddler'?
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words. I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
My favourite rumour by far tho: Johnny Depp as The Riddler (I believe Eddie Murphy been mentioned as well).
-
^rumors were that one of them would be in it.
Johnny Depp was rumored to play The Riddler & Philip Seymour Hoffman was rumored to play The Penguin.
again, those were all rumors; but those are two great actors who i could see playing an amazing role. 8)
-
I'm tired of Depp already, Burton has overused this dude.
-
I'm tired of Depp already, Burton has overused this dude.
he really has, but i think he's a terrific actor; could make for a sick Riddler if he got on his evil shit lol.
-
Depp would own The Riddler role
-
Mr. Freeze> all lol
Mr. Freeze/Riddler 4 this new one. Also imo SCARCROW needs to be utilized properly, his ass could be such a dope darkass villain but they just use him either for a side or a sub.IMO he should get either a bigger role or at least a cameo. Mr. Freeze and The Riddler could be a dope ass team. Freezes backstory can be drenched within emotions and Riddler the intellectual side. Though, this would raise a possiblity of a Doc Oct situation (Were Freeze regrets in the end, and tries 2 redeem himself).
Though honestly I just hope they don't whore out to Robin or some faggot shit like that.
-
Story wise, it wouldn't make sense to bring back the Scarecrow after the way he was for Batman Begins and then the Dark Knight. Robin for sure isn't going to be in the 3rd one.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
-
I'm tired of Depp already, Burton has overused this dude.
Seriously.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
-
I could care less about Superman, always looking forward to some new Batman though 8) good shit.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
Truth
I don't really know why though, I could never actually watch all of the episodes.Probably got around to the middle of season 3 and stopped. I should try to continue from there.I loved those series damnit!
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
Truth
I don't really know why though, I could never actually watch all of the episodes.Probably got around to the middle of season 3 and stopped. I should try to continue from there.I loved those series damnit!
Hell yeah, I have the complete animated series on DVD. Turned out to be a bootleg though (can tell from the whole bunch of spelling errors on the packaging), but I got it for a very fair price and all's that matter is that they work and that I can enjoy them.
Word of caution, if you want to buy the complete animated series online, ask questions about it, maybe some pictures. Y'know, examine it thoroughly.
-
There is no way in the current universe you can justify a multi-millionaire socialite taking in an orphaned teen and then training him to fight in the streets as a sidekick, and no way can you do it all in a single film. First you need a way to get the kid; Bruce Wayne in the eyes of the city and world is a male Paris Hilton. It took Wayne a life time of training to feel street ready, or at the very least 5 to 10 years, and he wasn't on the street himself until his 20s. So the boy robin makes no sense. A full grown Robin makes no sense as to why Bruce would take him in at all and why he would trust him.
The best they could without insulting the fans is have Wayne be somehow connected to the family more so than the circus because their needs to be a personal reason why the boy would be left with Bruce Wayne. If you make him a distant cousin you might make the comic nerds upset.
Now the best idea I can think of is;
Wayne Tech supplies the innovative technology that the circus uses; some type of mechanical ropes and harnesses. The gangsters who are trying to extort the circus tamper with the technology and the older Graysons fall to their death. Naturally Wayne tech Industries gets all the bad press so Bruce as Batman goes on the case, discovers what happened and who did it, and goes after the thugs, only to find the surviving Grayson already there trying to kill them himself. The kid gets captured and about to be killed as Bats saves the day. The next day Bruce Wayne faces the media, states that the fall was not due to bad equipment but due to criminal tampering and right next to him Jim Gordon, thanks to Batman's tip, is confirming the whole thing. Even though not to blame Wayne shows public sympathy for the boy and states he will be paying for him to attend the top boarding school in the country, with young Dick spending summers at Wayne Manor in the care of a private nanny and educator approved by child services. Over the years Bruce notices the desire for vengeance grows in the young man, written letters of anger sent to the thugs now convicts, fights at school, etc. Wayne takes him aside and trains him to channel his rage into martial arts and councils him by sharing their stories. Young Dick who while staying there for the summers with Alfred realizes something is up and eventually discovers the secret. Wayne further trains him and shows him how everything works but refuses to let him on the street until he is at least 19-21. Wayne uses the Batman and Robin image to inspire the city that needs more than a picture of Harvey Dent to feel safe. I'd imagine the first time he lets the kid on a real mission it would have to be something urgent that requires two men and something very noble and heroic. Let's say a burning orphanage.
Batman jumps to go and Dick stresses he'll need someone in the car to man the operations while Bat's is in the building among the flames. Batman gets stuck with the kids while in there and Robin jumps out of the car and comes to the rescue. The scene ends with the two of them in what looks like a pose as the children are safe and sound being looked at by EMT and a front page picture of the whole thing in a great shot makes Batman a hero again.
Now we just have to justify the cop killing, which is as easy as blaming one of the many Bat impostors gone rogue. An escapee from Arkham donned the suit and let his crazy paranoia make him think he was Batman, he thought the cops were dirty and killed them. He was so convincing in the role that he fooled Gordon and it wasn't until Gordon saw the two Batmen together that he realized the truth. At least that's the story the media would know. They can use any unaccounted for Arkham loon to be the set up guy.
-
There is no way in the current universe you can justify a multi-millionaire socialite taking in an orphaned teen and then training him to fight in the streets as a sidekick, and no way can you do it all in a single film. First you need a way to get the kid; Bruce Wayne in the eyes of the city and world is a male Paris Hilton. It took Wayne a life time of training to feel street ready, or at the very least 5 to 10 years, and he wasn't on the street himself until his 20s. So the boy robin makes no sense. A full grown Robin makes no sense as to why Bruce would take him in at all and why he would trust him.
The best they could without insulting the fans is have Wayne be somehow connected to the family more so than the circus because their needs to be a personal reason why the boy would be left with Bruce Wayne. If you make him a distant cousin you might make the comic nerds upset.
Now the best idea I can think of is;
Wayne Tech supplies the innovative technology that the circus uses; some type of mechanical ropes and harnesses. The gangsters who are trying to extort the circus tamper with the technology and the older Graysons fall to their death. Naturally Wayne tech Industries gets all the bad press so Bruce as Batman goes on the case, discovers what happened and who did it, and goes after the thugs, only to find the surviving Grayson already there trying to kill them himself. The kid gets captured and about to be killed as Bats saves the day. The next day Bruce Wayne faces the media, states that the fall was not due to bad equipment but due to criminal tampering and right next to him Jim Gordon, thanks to Batman's tip, is confirming the whole thing. Even though not to blame Wayne shows public sympathy for the boy and states he will be paying for him to attend the top boarding school in the country, with young Dick spending summers at Wayne Manor in the care of a private nanny and educator approved by child services. Over the years Bruce notices the desire for vengeance grows in the young man, written letters of anger sent to the thugs now convicts, fights at school, etc. Wayne takes him aside and trains him to channel his rage into martial arts and councils him by sharing their stories. Young Dick who while staying there for the summers with Alfred realizes something is up and eventually discovers the secret. Wayne further trains him and shows him how everything works but refuses to let him on the street until he is at least 19-21. Wayne uses the Batman and Robin image to inspire the city that needs more than a picture of Harvey Dent to feel safe. I'd imagine the first time he lets the kid on a real mission it would have to be something urgent that requires two men and something very noble and heroic. Let's say a burning orphanage.
Batman jumps to go and Dick stresses he'll need someone in the car to man the operations while Bat's is in the building among the flames. Batman gets stuck with the kids while in there and Robin jumps out of the car and comes to the rescue. The scene ends with the two of them in what looks like a pose as the children are safe and sound being looked at by EMT and a front page picture of the whole thing in a great shot makes Batman a hero again.
Now we just have to justify the cop killing, which is as easy as blaming one of the many Bat impostors gone rogue. An escapee from Arkham donned the suit and let his crazy paranoia make him think he was Batman, he thought the cops were dirty and killed them. He was so convincing in the role that he fooled Gordon and it wasn't until Gordon saw the two Batmen together that he realized the truth. At least that's the story the media would know. They can use any unaccounted for Arkham loon to be the set up guy.
I had my own thoughts on how they might be able to introduce the character in the current film series, and they were actually pretty similar to your's, at least in some ways. I agree that that is a story line that could not be told in a single movie. In order for it to work, it would have to be a "slower burn" than that.
The idea I was tossing around in my head would be to have Anthony Zucco take over the Falcone family after Sal Maroni was killed by Two Face in the events from "The Dark Knight." This would also have comic book precedent, because that's similar to how Jeph Loeb depicted Zucco in the graphic novel "Batman: Dark Victory." My idea was to have the story play out very similar to Robin's comic book origin with Grayson's parent's killed by Zucco. But by the end of the movie, when people are expecting Richard Grayson to become Robin, it doesn't happen. I would actually write the events to play out over the course of three movies, with Grayson having a more behind the scenes role similar to Alfred, in the second of the three movies, and actually becoming Robin in the third one. Of course to me, the trick would be keeping this story peripheral to the main story, and having it play more like a sub-plot. To me, it's important to keep Batman as the focal point. As far as the Richard Grayson character himself, I would cast some who's about 12 years old for the first of the three movies. Since there's usually about a 3 year period between each of the movies that would make him 18 yrs. old by the time the third movie rolled around, and he actually appeared as Robin.
The other thoughts I had about a potential Robin story is in my version of the story (if I were to write it), originally Bruce Wayne would have no intention of training Grayson to be a "sidekick." Initially, he's only interested in him, because he is a witness to his parent's murder. And since Wayne already suspects Zucco is involved, he wants to find out what the kid knows. Over the course of the second movie, he would somehow gain Wayne's trust, and end up helping him and Alfred behind the scenes in the batcave. And finally (either at the end of the second or beginning of the third movie) there would be some kind of catalyst to change Wayne's mind about training him to actually fight.
As with all comic book movies, there's a thin line between what will work and what won't. Some things that work in the comics just won't work in the movies, but I think if the story line was handled with care, it could work. People have to bear in mind that the only time the Robin character was even attempted in the movies, it was by a group of people that were more interested in selling Batman merchandise than they were making a good movie. If the creative team behind the current Batman movies attempted to adapt the character, and they were actually motivated to do so, they could probably make it work.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
Truth
I don't really know why though, I could never actually watch all of the episodes.Probably got around to the middle of season 3 and stopped. I should try to continue from there.I loved those series damnit!
If you get a chance, try checking out the 4th season (a.k.a. The Batman and Robin Adventures). To me, it has some of the most solid stories of the series. Unfortunately, it was the last year the show ran, but it was really good season imo.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
Truth
I don't really know why though, I could never actually watch all of the episodes.Probably got around to the middle of season 3 and stopped. I should try to continue from there.I loved those series damnit!
If you get a chance, try checking out the 4th season (a.k.a. The Batman and Robin Adventures). To me, it has some of the most solid stories of the series. Unfortunately, it was the last year the show ran, but it was really good season imo.
I'm on the 2nd disc (out of 4) of the 4th season. I didn't like some of the redesigns they gave some of the characters. Mad Hatter looks weird, Joker doesn't look the same without his red lips (though, i don't mind his design in later appearances, i.e. Justice League, etc), Ventriloquist, etc.
-
No offense but Robin kinda ruins everything. Good thing he won't be appearing in any of the Nolan Batman films. Bale even said that if they were to add a sidekick for him, he'd quit. :laugh:
I honestly can't see Riddler being as appealing as the other dudes, he probably can get knocked out in a single punch. But his appearance would make sense for the 3rd. I mean, with the way Batman was running from the cops and all.
Maybe add Red Hood (he could be anybody, and ironically RH is now the 2nd Robin who Joker killed. Wanting to get revenge on Batman for not avenging him)
I think they could effectively use the Robin character if done correctly, but they could not approach the character the way they have in the previous films. Either way, I think the point is probably moot, because Nolan has stated in interviews that he's not interested in using Robin in any of his movies. And honestly, after the disasterous Schumaker films, I can understand the stigma surrounding the character.
Btw, Dollaz+Sense, did you hear that the next animated DC film is going to be "Batman: Under the Hood," based off of the comic series you were talking about with the 2nd Robin returning as the Red Hood? It looks pretty cool. There's a little info on it here, along with one screen shot:
http://enewsi.com/animation/194-16773.html
Not to mention the portrayal of Robin in the campy 1960's Batman, "Holy jeepers creepers, Batman! Jiminy Crickets!" and all the jazz. :D That's kinda hard to not forget.
also, good looking on the animated film. it looks real cool. unusual list of voice cast though, I'm used to the usual Kevin Conroy & Mark Hamill.
Lol. Yeah, the campiness is what killed Batman for many people, for years. And when Schumaker was still directing the Batman movies, he would always site that old t.v. show as one of his biggest influences. He was a big fan of the old 60's show, and unfortunately it clearly came across in his movies. In the modern comic books though, Robin is actually a pretty effective character. It's too bad that to date, no one has been able to translate that into a film well.
I agree with you on the animated casting too, btw. For an animated film, you can't go wrong with Conroy or Hamil. To me, the "Batman: The Animated Series," from the 90's is still the best animated adaptation of Batman that there's ever been.
Truth
I don't really know why though, I could never actually watch all of the episodes.Probably got around to the middle of season 3 and stopped. I should try to continue from there.I loved those series damnit!
If you get a chance, try checking out the 4th season (a.k.a. The Batman and Robin Adventures). To me, it has some of the most solid stories of the series. Unfortunately, it was the last year the show ran, but it was really good season imo.
I'm on the 2nd disc (out of 4) of the 4th season. I didn't like some of the redesigns they gave some of the characters. Mad Hatter looks weird, Joker doesn't look the same without his red lips (though, i don't mind his design in later appearances, i.e. Justice League, etc), Ventriloquist, etc.
Yeah. The designs were simplified some to match the aesthetics of the animated Superman show which they began to air during the same block of programing as Batman, starting with the 4th Season. It did take some getting used to, but I actually got to where I preferred most of the 4th Season designs. I have to agree that Joker did look sort of weird though. I really like what they did with the designs for Batman, Scarecrow, and Mr. Freeze though. Not to mention how good the writing is that season. Not that the writing was ever bad. But I really like some of the stories that were told in the 4th Season.
-
Mr. Freeze> all lol
lol
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
-
that barber movie was fucking horrible.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I hated his Bat films. And I hated them way before Begins was released. They're just as campy as the 60s stuff except the colours are darker and the moods are down.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
I understand that the Burton films used satire. The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's. I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's. The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy. But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion. Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews. But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics. There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show. It had it's place. But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show. And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
I understand that the Burton films used satire. The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's. I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's. The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy. But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion. Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews. But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics. There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show. It had it's place. But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show. And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.
The 60s TV show was satire, not Burton's film. I know Joel took from the TV show. What I'm arguing is that just like his only window into Batman was the TV show, so was Burton's. The only thing Tim Burton knew about Batman was from the TV show, and it shows. The film sucked then and it sucks now. At least the TV show was trying to be funny for a certain audience. Burton took the show and mixed it with Beetlejuice. Batman The Animated Series blows anything Burton did out of the water, and I'm not the hugest fan of that show either.
-
Im sick of johnny depp.He bores me.As does tim burton.Ive never understood what was so great about tim burton.Hes like the king of movies for emo children,thats about it.
ever notice that practically all of his moves have the same formula & setting?
A dark night (only about 5 minutes of sunshine), snowy weather, pale ass-looking people, his wife in the cast, Johnny Depp.
But aside that, his Batman films really re-defined the series.
I agree. While he took a lot of liberties with the Batman mythos, he was the first director to at least attempt giving the subject matter the respect it deserves. I don't think his two Batman films completely work as Batman films, but they both work as films. If you look at it from an historical context, it was a huge step in the right direction from the 1966 t.v. show.
I greatly prefer the 60s stuff. It gets a bad rap. The series was a successful spoof of Batman and of the 60s life. The 80s Butrton films were attempts at being serious and dark and they both failed greatly. They were at best second rate Beetlejuice films.
Well, I can appreciate the 60's show for what it was. And also looking at it from an historical perspective, it was clearly the product of it's time. It's not that Batman started out campy. In the 1940s, the Batman comics had a very dark film noir-like quality. It's just that the campy version of the 60's is what seemed to work at that time. The Vietnam War had a pretty big impact on the culture. People needed an outlet to escape reality for a little while. And in general, people weren't in the frame of mind to watch a weekly t.v. show that was dark and brooding.
So for what it is, I can still enjoy the 1966 t.v. show. What I don't like, on the other hand, is how much Joel Schumaker let that show influence his Batman movies. Not only did that version of Batman no longer have any cultural relevance, it also cause a sudden dramatic shift in tone from the Tim Burton movies to the Schumaker movies.
What you are missing is that it was satire. It knew exactly what it was doing. It was making fun of things. You say Schumacher let it be an influence and I see a scene in my head of the Joker walking around with a boombox playing Prince music and drawing over paintings. Nothing dark and broody about that.
I understand that the Burton films used satire. The Joker's "war on the consumer" by poisoning of the health and beauty products was a pretty good example of a satirical commentary on the rampant commercialism of the 80's. I can't agree though that Burton's use of satire made his movies identical in tone to Schumaker's. The Joker dancing around a boombox while listening to Prince is a little goofy. But it's rather subtle compared to a scene in "Batman and Robin," for instance, where Batman literally tries to pay for something with a bat-credit card. At that point, I'd say that goes beyond satire almost into farcical territory.
Now, my saying that Schumaker let the 60's t.v. show influence him, is not merely my opinion. Schumaker has said this himself in various interviews. But while the 60's t.v. show was actually clever for it's time, I personally didn't find that any of that poignancy translated to Schumaker's Batman films.
The point I was trying to make about the Burton films is that while they have their flaws, they represented the first attempt from a major studio to capture the tone of the original comics. There's nothing wrong with the 60's t.v. show. It had it's place. But it had actually come to be so well known that prior to Burton's first "Batman" film in 1989, many people's only frame of reference for Batman was that show. And while that show represents an interesting period in Batman history, it's tone really only reflects about a 3 year period of Batman from the comics.
The 60s TV show was satire, not Burton's film. I know Joel took from the TV show. What I'm arguing is that just like his only window into Batman was the TV show, so was Burton's. The only thing Tim Burton knew about Batman was from the TV show, and it shows. The film sucked then and it sucks now. At least the TV show was trying to be funny for a certain audience. Burton took the show and mixed it with Beetlejuice. Batman The Animated Series blows anything Burton did out of the water, and I'm not the hugest fan of that show either.
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
I understand that Batman has a long history in comics. I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years. And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago). Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke." That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome. And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character. Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke." I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence. And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West. I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969). What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books. Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s. Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character. Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time. But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy. And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends." My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.
As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films. But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies. For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series. The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier." Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes. And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better. As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen. Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies. But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)
Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum. I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
I understand that Batman has a long history in comics. I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years. And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago). Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke." That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome. And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character. Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke." I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence. And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West. I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969). What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books. Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s. Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character. Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time. But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy. And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends." My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.
As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films. But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies. For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series. The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier." Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes. And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better. As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen. Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies. But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)
Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum. I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.
To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.
And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE
-
Just adding some views to the point about Tim Burton being formulaic and overrated. I wouldn't necessarily agree with that but I understand it totally. I think his films are all similar in feel, but thats just because of his directing style. I personally like how his films look. Theyre all incredible in terms of lighting, sets, attractiveness etc. But I have to agree a lot of his films in terms of plot etc are weak. For example, even though Sleepy Hollow LOOKED good, the film itself was shit. Same goes for his CHocolate Factory and Sweeney Todd.
So yeah, his films are overrated but I think he's great at creating dark worlds that look superb to the eye.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
I understand that Batman has a long history in comics. I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years. And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago). Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke." That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome. And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character. Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke." I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence. And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West. I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969). What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books. Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s. Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character. Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time. But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy. And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends." My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.
As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films. But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies. For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series. The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier." Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes. And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better. As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen. Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies. But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)
Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum. I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.
To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.
And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE
Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie. If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel. The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though. I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact. Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given. And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have. He does get a lot of work in hollywood. But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first. And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him. The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
As far as the "I'm Batman" line. Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that. But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series." This is what I'm talking about:
Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/ThePenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/DevitoPenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/AnimatedPenguin.jpg)
I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined. But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns." It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
I understand that Batman has a long history in comics. I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years. And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago). Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke." That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome. And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character. Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke." I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence. And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West. I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969). What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books. Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s. Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character. Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time. But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy. And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends." My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.
As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films. But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies. For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series. The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier." Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes. And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better. As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen. Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies. But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)
Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum. I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.
To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.
And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE
Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie. If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel. The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though. I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact. Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given. And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have. He does get a lot of work in hollywood. But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first. And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him. The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
As far as the "I'm Batman" line. Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that. But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series." This is what I'm talking about:
Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/ThePenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/DevitoPenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/AnimatedPenguin.jpg)
I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined. But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns." It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.
Forget the quality of the film. I don't need to convince you. You can like what you like. What we're talking about now is the inception of it. Batman was something Warner was trying to get off the groundsince Superman was a success. Burton was chosen as director and obviously had a lot of say in the film but he wasn't the executive producer or producer and most of what you see in a film marketing wise come from that end. Englehart still would have laid out the story, and it was Warner's choice to go dark AFTER the success of the darker Batman in Comics. It wasn't Burton that said we need this character to be dark. Remember he was hired after making Pee Wee, so that makes me think the producers wanted another camp film, but the success of the books made them change their minds, but not too much.
As for me, I can only imagine what a Ridley Scott directed Mel Gibson as Bruce Wayne would have turned out like. That being said they can still make a Dark Knight Returns with that team on board if they wanted to.
And as for the cartoon; that's more Devito than Burton. DeVito was hired by producers because he was a star and played the character his way. And even then it's more visual than anything else with regards to how he is similar to Animated one. And Joker as Jack Napier; who cares what his name? Mark Hammil created his own Joker. That's not debatable, and Jack was the pick for Joker almost ten years before the film came out.
-
Okay, sorry. I misunderstood what you were saying. As far as Burton being influenced by the 60's t.v. show, perhaps he was some, but if that's true, I've never heard him admit to it. One major source of inspiration for the movie according to Burton himself (from the extras on the "Batman" special edition dvd) was the Alan Moore story, "The Killing Joke." In fact, while at an early meeting during production, Burton passed out copies of the comic and basically told people "this is what we're going for." (paraphrase)
I will agree that Burton's films have a certain aesthetic that he seems to use over and over, and they're clearly not for everybody. I'm actually a fan of most of his movies, but there are a couple of them, that even I don't like. I have to disagree with you about the movies sucking though. I think they are definitely flawed. There were artist decisions that I didn't agree with and still don't agree with. But those movies are what first set the bar. There wouldn't have been a "Batman: The Animated Series," or a "Batman Begins" or "Dark Knight" without first having those movies.
Batman is Batman with or with out Tim Burton, and those movies would have been made whether Tim Burton ever existed or not. And so would the animated series, and the Nolan films. I don't know if you've read Killing Joke, but I have, and Burton's films are nothing close to it. Begins exists because the way it exists because of Frank Miller and Allan Moore, and it was created as a new franchise because of Batman.
You make it seem like Batman was only known as Adam West. Everyone knew Batman because of Batman, whether they ever bought an issue of the comic or not. Batman cartoons and cross promotions existed before Burton. Claiming anything to Burton is like saying Sam Raimi is responsible for making Spiderman a star. Spiderman made Raimi and star, and Batman made Burton; Not the other way around.
I understand that Batman has a long history in comics. I've collected Batman comics for over 20 years. And yes, I have read and own "The Killing Joke" (two copies actually, the 1st printing and the re-release from a couple years ago). Actually, Joker's origin in Burton's "Batman" is very similar to his origin in "The Killing Joke." That doesn't mean that I think that Jack Nicholson's Joker is better. Heath Ledger's Joker was awesome. And although he was a bit of a departure from the traditional comic book Joker, I think he kept to the spirit of the character. Now, Joker origin aside, I don't know how much else Sam Hamm (the writer of Tim Burton's "Batman") borrowed from "The Killing Joke." I'm only telling you that Burton himself said it was a major influence. And if I had to speculate, I would say Burton was referring to "The Killing Joke" influencing the tone of the movie more than being a point-by-point outline of the events of the movie.
To my earlier point about Batman's history in the comics, I'm fully aware that Batman is not thought of, the world over as Adam West. I said myself, in my previous post that that era of the "campy" Batman only lasted about three years (from about 1966-1969). What you have to keep in mind, is not everyone reads the Batman comic books. Moreover, there were especially a lot of people who didn't read Batman comics in the 1960s. Many of those people grew up with only the t.v. Batman as a frame-of-reference for the character. Or possibly from some of the cartoons of the time. But most of those cartoons also portrayed Batman as campy. And in fact, Adam West even voiced Batman in both the Filmation Cartoon Series and at least one version of Hanna Barbera's "Super Friends." My point was that, for many of those people, Burton's "Batman" movie in 1989 was their first experience watching a Batman that wasn't campy.
As far as the Animated series and Christopher Nolan's films, I didn't mean to imply that they couldn't have existed at all without Burton's Batman films. But what I am saying is that they were obviously influenced by those movies. For instance, Danny Elfman scored the music for both Tim Burton's Batman films, and the Animated Series. The version of the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" is right out of Burton's "Batman Returns." The Joker in The Animated Series is on at least one occasion, referred to as "Jack Napier." Did the Animated Series sometimes depart creatively from Burton's Batman movies? Yes. And I agree with you, that in many ways it was better. As far as Nolan's Batman films, I don't think they owe as much to Tim Burton's Batman as the animated series did, but some influence can be seen. Batman's costume, for example, is still a modified version of the black body armor that was first seen in Burton's movies. But yes, I agree with you that it owes more to Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" ( and actually Jeph Loeb's "Batman: The Long Halloween" and "Batman: Dark Victory" as long as we're keeping score.)
Look, you and I can debate this ad nauseum. I respect your opinion, I just disagree. I'm sure neither one of us is going to budge, so we might as well just agree to disagree.
I can agree to disagree except I have to clarify what I meant first. It's not the plot of batman that bothers me. There is nothing with the script for the most part, Joker dancing in the museum and shooting a jet down with a pistol aside. The problem is the tone. The tone of Moore's Killing Joke is dark and disturbing. Batman the film is fluffy and cheesy. And Ill take campy over cheesy any day of the week. Burton was attempting to do some sort of abstract approach to Batman like he was Kubrick; he's not.
To me it's simple; Tim Burton doesn't like comic books. Batman was a cash grab and a way to bring his style to the masses. It was a mistake in my opinion to go with Burton. Scott, Cameron or Verhoeven all would have made far superior films than Burton and would have made them a lot straighter and more believable. The script could have been the exact same for the most part. Elfman still would have done the score, "I'm Batman" would still exist, Jack would still be Joker, and Batmania would still have happened. If the studio wanted eccentric art they would have been better off goign after Besson in terms of quality. Professional is a better Batman film than Batman or Returns.
And what Batman TAS have you been watching? Oswald Cobblepot in the cartoon is an aristocrat the whole way in his character. In the film he's a savage, and reminds me more of this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63SRpGXBHE
Well, I've given up on convincing you that "Batman" was a good movie. If you feel that it isn't, then that's the way you feel. The Joker "Jack Napier" identity was an invention of the Tim Burton movie though. I have seen him referred to as "Jack" in some versions of his comic book origin, but that was much after-the-fact. Having read "The Killing Joke," you know that Joker's name isn't given. And prior to becoming Joker, he uses the Red Hood alias.
I can't argue that maybe Danny Elfman would have still scored "The Animated Series," cause who knows...maybe he would have. He does get a lot of work in hollywood. But the fact is, he still scored that "Batman" movie first. And I'm sure that's what put the creators of the "Animated Series" in mind to hire him. The score he composed for "The Animated Series" is very similar to the original "Batman" score.
As far as the "I'm Batman" line. Yeah, it's possible that in any Batman origin-type story you might have seen that line, or a line similar to that. But it was first written for the 1989 "Batman," movie.
Oh, and you know what I mean about the Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series." This is what I'm talking about:
Here's Penguin from the comics, prior to "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/ThePenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman Returns"
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/DevitoPenguin.jpg)
Here's Penguin from "Batman: The Animated Series" which is post-"Batman Returns" (obviously, he's the one to the far left of the picture)
(http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv344/doogie2005/AnimatedPenguin.jpg)
I agree the Penguin character in "The Animated Series" is a bit more refined. But in terms of character design, he's very much like Penguin from "Batman Returns." It's all there, the long hair, the flippers for hands, even his style of dress.
Forget the quality of the film. I don't need to convince you. You can like what you like. What we're talking about now is the inception of it. Batman was something Warner was trying to get off the groundsince Superman was a success. Burton was chosen as director and obviously had a lot of say in the film but he wasn't the executive producer or producer and most of what you see in a film marketing wise come from that end. Englehart still would have laid out the story, and it was Warner's choice to go dark AFTER the success of the darker Batman in Comics. It wasn't Burton that said we need this character to be dark. Remember he was hired after making Pee Wee, so that makes me think the producers wanted another camp film, but the success of the books made them change their minds, but not too much.
As for me, I can only imagine what a Ridley Scott directed Mel Gibson as Bruce Wayne would have turned out like. That being said they can still make a Dark Knight Returns with that team on board if they wanted to.
And as for the cartoon; that's more Devito than Burton. DeVito was hired by producers because he was a star and played the character his way. And even then it's more visual than anything else with regards to how he is similar to Animated one. And Joker as Jack Napier; who cares what his name? Mark Hammil created his own Joker. That's not debatable, and Jack was the pick for Joker almost ten years before the film came out.
My personal feeling is that it was not the studio's intention to go for a campy tone for the Burton movies, even if some of the scenes may border on coming off that way. There was definitely more of a fantasy element to his Batman universe than the Nolan films. I do concede that the Pee Wee Herman movies were pretty cheesy (deliberately so, I believe), but more than that, Burton is just a weird director. That's just Burton's style. He does weird stuff. He obviously isn't for everybody.
I, myself, was skeptical when I heard they were hiring Michael Keaton to play Batman. Prior to that he had been known more for his comedic roles. After seeing it though, I thought it all came together pretty well.
I don't think Tim Burton's Batman movies even come close to as good as Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, but I still enjoyed them. I know there are many out there who don't. To each their own. I personally, could never get into the Joel Schumaker Batman movies.
The idea of a Ridley Scott Batman film is an interesting one. I like many of his movies and wouldn't have minded seeing what he could have done with the property.
And I agree that Mark Hamil's Joker was always his own. Hamil did a fantastic job as Joker, and I'm not trying to take anything away from him. Giving him the Jack Napier name was just a simple nod to the movies. Personally, I've always preferred Joker not having a known real name. That's one of the many things I liked about Heath Ledger's Joker.
As far as the Penguin, I know that his reinvention for "Batman Returns" was a collaborative effort between Danny DeVito (who didn't want to just be cast as Penguin because he's a short, fat guy) and Tim Burton (who thought that the comic book version of the character was boring). There are differences in the characterization between the "Animated..." version and the "...Returns" version. But from a design perspective, the "Animated" version was heavily influenced by "Batman Returns."
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
-
Just my two cents... because I love the Batguy so much.. lol
Okay, Batman and Batman Returns were not bad movies. They were movies that for it's time were very different, but very much in tune of the 80's and early 90's. I can watch Batman over and over again and come away with 2 things, the tone of that movie was clearly something between the campy 60's Batman and the The Dark Knight Returns, and watching it now it is very dated. At those extremes, and in 1989 you have what we all come to love as Tim Burton's Batman. Burton had not regard for the comic, but few cared because what Batman was ultimately meant to do was make money and promote Batman as the face of the comic world leading into the 90's. Now in the 80's comics took a very dark turn, but this would not be replicated in the movies, and with good reason. Though Burton may have liked the Killing Joke, the Darker Batman that we know was truly not what people then knew. Batman was Adam West, it was cartoons with Scooby Doo. To make Batman into a complete Killing Joke type movie would cause people to go nuts. I remember older people not liking the new tone on Batman and Batman Returns because it was too dark, and it was not what they were use to. To them Joker was a funny clown who wanted to do damage to the water system and Penguin was some sea creature.
Batman did have a lot of social commentary, like what was mentioned earlier in terms of the commercialism and consumerism of the 80's. But what failed to do as well is tell a story that will hold the test of time. In 2010, Batman and Batman Returns do not hold up to today's standards. I would say Superman and Superman 2 hold up better today as stories than Batman and Batman Returns. By moving away from the comic book, Burton's Batman was very much set for a make money now movie, and was not exactly building on the Batman story. The imagery influenced the Animated Series though, and that might have been the best thing to come out of the movies. The 4 seasons of Batman the Animated Series are much more important to the Batman legacy than Batman and Batman Returns. This is not because they were bad movies, it's because they were made for 1989. Clearly Burton made the movies for the time. This did allow Christopher Nolan to come and completely take Batman into a different direction, as he used Year One and the original Joker to influence his movies. Had Burton's movies not came out, we'd still be comparing Batman to the 1960's.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Except there is no doubt in my mind that the films would have been made with or with out Burton. Who would have gotten and what it would been like who knows? But with Jack on board as the Joker it would have been a hit and the cartoon would have come out. That whole 50s fashion style set in the 80s thing may not have happened with out Burton but who cares?
The movies would have been a hit, the show would have still existed, and the new films would have come out, (and let's not even get into my problems with Nolan's films).
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
-
Just my two cents... because I love the Batguy so much.. lol
Okay, Batman and Batman Returns were not bad movies. They were movies that for it's time were very different, but very much in tune of the 80's and early 90's. I can watch Batman over and over again and come away with 2 things, the tone of that movie was clearly something between the campy 60's Batman and the The Dark Knight Returns, and watching it now it is very dated. At those extremes, and in 1989 you have what we all come to love as Tim Burton's Batman. Burton had not regard for the comic, but few cared because what Batman was ultimately meant to do was make money and promote Batman as the face of the comic world leading into the 90's. Now in the 80's comics took a very dark turn, but this would not be replicated in the movies, and with good reason. Though Burton may have liked the Killing Joke, the Darker Batman that we know was truly not what people then knew. Batman was Adam West, it was cartoons with Scooby Doo. To make Batman into a complete Killing Joke type movie would cause people to go nuts. I remember older people not liking the new tone on Batman and Batman Returns because it was too dark, and it was not what they were use to. To them Joker was a funny clown who wanted to do damage to the water system and Penguin was some sea creature.
Batman did have a lot of social commentary, like what was mentioned earlier in terms of the commercialism and consumerism of the 80's. But what failed to do as well is tell a story that will hold the test of time. In 2010, Batman and Batman Returns do not hold up to today's standards. I would say Superman and Superman 2 hold up better today as stories than Batman and Batman Returns. By moving away from the comic book, Burton's Batman was very much set for a make money now movie, and was not exactly building on the Batman story. The imagery influenced the Animated Series though, and that might have been the best thing to come out of the movies. The 4 seasons of Batman the Animated Series are much more important to the Batman legacy than Batman and Batman Returns. This is not because they were bad movies, it's because they were made for 1989. Clearly Burton made the movies for the time. This did allow Christopher Nolan to come and completely take Batman into a different direction, as he used Year One and the original Joker to influence his movies. Had Burton's movies not came out, we'd still be comparing Batman to the 1960's.
You make some good points. I do think that in the late 80's and early 90's, there was beginning to be more respect given to the source material in regards to comic book movies. But they didn't put the care into making them as accurate as they've started making them today. Although I have to say, for as much as I love Christopher Nolan's Batman movies, even they have taken many liberties with the source material. Not as much as Tim Burton's movies . And certainly not as much as Joel Schumaker's movies . But even Nolan's Batman movies, which are great, differ in many ways from the source material. I think Nolan has done a great job capturing the spirit of what Batman is all about, but even his movies are not perfect. At least in terms of being completely accurate compared to the source material.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
Yeah. I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman. They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like. At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies. And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman. He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
Yeah. I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman. They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like. At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies. And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman. He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.
I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.
My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.
In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you heard Keaton was hired? How old are you? I was barely old enough to read when Keaton was hired as Wayne.
31. I would have been 11 years old when "Batman" came out in 1989. So I was fairly young, but I was already a pretty big fan of movies. I was aware enough of various actors to know who Michael Keaton was. In fact, I remembered him especially from "Beetlejuice," which came out just a year prior.
I remember when he was hired to play Bruce Wayne ad knew him as Beetlejuice and Johnny Dangerously would play on TV a lot, same with Mr Mom. But at not even 7 years old I certainly wasn't old enough to judge him as Bruce Wayne. I just knew I was told he was Bruce Wayne and it worked for me. And at 7 I thought Batman and Batman Returns were wonderful. At around 13 was when I started to think of them as stupid and silly.
When I first saw Begins it was a breath of fresh air. It made me almost believe it was possible for a Batman to exist in the real world and that in itself makes it a great success. I had my issues with both Nolan films but the difference with the Burton films is when I see them now I keep saying "oh God" to myself wondering how anyone over 13 liked them when they came out. If I were a teenager I would have hated them upon release, but I'm tough to please as you can tell.
Yeah. I think prior to the film's release, the attitude at the time from a lot of people was disbelief that the studio would go with a choice like Michael Keaton for Batman. They actually have an extra on the dvd where they talk about Warner Brothers stock dropping after initially making the announcement that Michael Keaton would play Batman. lol I think people tended to be more accepting of it, after they actually saw it, but there was a lot of doubt initially.
As far as the Nolan Batman Universe, some of the changes he and David Goyer made to the mythology, I actually like. At least in the sense that it seems to work well for the movies. And I agree with you about Christopher Nolan's films. Everything seems grounded in reality, at least enough, to make you think that someone could almost pull off actually being Batman. He does a pretty good job of making things that seemed outlandish before, have a logical explanation.
I'm not one of those comic nuts that needs everything to be proper. A lot of what works in print can't work on screen. I could care less that they strayed from the mythos. In my opinion there is no mythos because it changes every time DC does a reboot.
My problems lie in the films. I thought Rachel Dawes was a waste of a character in both films and a love story was not needed in an origin story of Batman, and I thought the whole blow up Gotham like we've done to all civilizations storyline was over the top and silly. I would have preferred Batman even more grounded, and even eliminated Ducard/Ghul almost completely.
In the Dark knight, every thing related to the Joker was near perfect, but Two face was forced down my throats and it didn't go in smooth. I had no reason to believe this guy would flip and I didn't buy it when he did. "You didn't believe me when I said your force was corrupt, I will now kill your son". Two Face should have been presented as a borderline split personality that becomes one with the accident. He had two sides that existed separately and now they co-exist simultaneously. Two Face is indifferent. He does not care what side wins out, so he leaves it to chance. and the film should have ended with the beginning of Two face to set up the third film, not all but end the Two Face story line in the same film.
Initially I wasn't too crazy with the Rachael Dawes character either. In "Batman Begins" her character didn't seem to serve a vital purpose at all. Although, I thought the direction they took her in the "Dark Knight" somewhat redeemed the character as it provided a personal motive for Batman to want to stop the Joker, in addition to the reasons he would already have had for wanting to stop him. Although, I found the casting change a bit distracting. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is probably a better actress than Katie Holmes, but it gets on my nerves anytime they have to break continuity (especially only two movies in to a series) in these kind of movies. It kind of takes you out of the story. And I think had they stuck with the original actress, Rachael's death probably would have had more weight, from a narrative perspective.
-
I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
-
I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
agreed
-
I would have preferred Maggie from the start but I still don't like the character. The character should have been Dent in the first one as the assistant DA who was bumped to DA for the second film with the new wave of Gotham promotions. Whether or not Dent came from a family that worked for the Waynes wouldn't have mattered to me. It would have made the two face turn more dramatic and have made the series a nice trilogy leading up to Batman vs Two Face the whole three films.
agreed
Of course if they did it that way as a trilogy they could have ended it with this scene.
The final fight between Batman and Two-Face is placed near a pit and Two-Face ends up falling over the edge but Bats grabs him and they have a dialogue;
Two Face: Bruce. We go back a long way me and you. Did you ever think it would come to this?
Batman(in Batman voice): Bruce?
Two Face: Get off it Bruce I've known the whole time. Bruce Wayne; caped crusader.
Batman(drops Batman voice): Harvey I'm sorry but ever since my father died I've felt this rage inside me and...
Two Face: Ever since your father died?
Batman: Yes, when Joe Chill killed him in the street like that it was too much for me.
Two Face: Is that what the coroner told you? That your father died in that attack?
Batman: What are you saying?
Two Face: Bruce your father didn't die...
Batman: Then wha...
Two Face: Bruce. Bruce. I am your father.
Batman then lets go of Two Face in shock and screams
Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
then Batman realizes he has let his father drop as Two Face stares up at Batman with a smile and Batman screams again
Batman: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The scene ends with an over the top shot of Batman staring at the sky screaming as Two Face is falling smile and all
FADE TO BLACK
END CREDITS
I would stand in that theater with a frenzy of applause if they had the balls to do that.
-
No offense,but that would be a horrible,cliche ending.
-
No offense,but that would be a horrible,cliche ending.
-
Cliche? You guys didn't get it at all.
-
LMAO!!!
-
Just go back to typing up screenplays that nobody will ever read,because with endings like that thats all they will ever amount to.
-
Just go back to typing up screenplays that nobody will ever read,because with endings like that thats all they will ever amount to.
Are you serious? You can't be that dense. You really didn't get the joke?
-
Just go back to typing up screenplays that nobody will ever read,because with endings like that thats all they will ever amount to.
Are you serious? You can't be that dense. You really didn't get the joke?
Over his head. I thought it was funny.
-
Just go back to typing up screenplays that nobody will ever read,because with endings like that thats all they will ever amount to.
Are you serious? You can't be that dense. You really didn't get the joke?
Over his head. I thought it was funny.
Thank you sir. I'm not even saying the joke is roll on the floor hysterical but it should at least warrant a chuckle. That being said I would erupt if they ever actually did something like that to end the series. Just because of how daring it would be. I mean to sacrifice so much money just for kicks would be admirable.
-
Its not over my head,I just thinks its lame.
-
Its not over my head,I just thinks its lame.
Then explain to me how it's cliche.
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
The British filmmaker informs that his brother Jonathan Nolan, who has previously penned "The Dark Knight", is writing the screenplay for the next sequel, gushing "My brother has come up with some pretty exciting stuff." He further explains, "Unlike the comics, these thing don't go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we're telling. And it hearkens back to that priority of trying to find the reality in these fantastic stories. That's what we do."
Asked about who will be the next "Batman" villain, he refuses to spill the detail, but does eliminate one name, saying "It won't be Mr. Freeze." Though he has spoken a lot about his return to the next movie about the Gotham hero, Nolan still won't confirm to Los Angeles Times whether or not he will direct "Batman 3", which recently was reported to have begun scouting in Chicago.
-
sounds like a real good concept if that would be the right word for something that was such a tragedy. i can see how the series will be in terms of gritty real life feel as well from the creators of the wire.
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are connected though. First film you essentially have Batman shutting down crime, second film you show the impact of Batman by having the Scarecrow be involved in some petty crime and bam a psycho had to come to shake things up in Gotham. Third film seems to be that it will continue with batman being seen as a villain.
-
Screw the conventional Batman villians. Bring in Lobo.
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are connected though. First film you essentially have Batman shutting down crime, second film you show the impact of Batman by having the Scarecrow be involved in some petty crime and bam a psycho had to come to shake things up in Gotham. Third film seems to be that it will continue with batman being seen as a villain.
Well said. They touch on that at the end of "Batman Begins" with Gordon talking about escalation. And then they really get into it in "The Dark Knight," where Bruce Wayne sees the consequences, both good and bad, that his actions have had over the course of both films. Also, in a way that is perhaps a bit less central to the overall story (but still significant), both movies are tied together by Bruce Wayne's romantic pursuit of Rachael Dawes. They also tie things together by wrapping up the Scarecrow storyline from "Batman Begins" at the beginning of "The Dark Knight." In addition, they mention that Sal Maroni is the successor to the Falcone crime family, which was the family that was used in "Batman Begins."
I do think that both movie storylines' can stand independently of each other, in that you don't really need to see one to appreciate the other one. But they are related in some ways.
-
LOBO I tell yah. He'll fuckin kill Batman 8)
(http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/lobo_image.jpg)
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are connected though. First film you essentially have Batman shutting down crime, second film you show the impact of Batman by having the Scarecrow be involved in some petty crime and bam a psycho had to come to shake things up in Gotham. Third film seems to be that it will continue with batman being seen as a villain.
i'm just saying, people told me they didn't even see Batman Begins & they had no problems following The Dark Knight.
the only thing was Scarecrow at the start of Dark Knight & that was basically irrelevant.
i guess if you want to super anaylze it, they're connected; but i'm sure you'd have to see the end of Dark Knight to follow the third film.
but regardless, i wanted at least five films. :P
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are connected though. First film you essentially have Batman shutting down crime, second film you show the impact of Batman by having the Scarecrow be involved in some petty crime and bam a psycho had to come to shake things up in Gotham. Third film seems to be that it will continue with batman being seen as a villain.
i'm just saying, people told me they didn't even see Batman Begins & they had no problems following The Dark Knight.
the only thing was Scarecrow at the start of Dark Knight & that was basically irrelevant.
i guess if you want to super anaylze it, they're connected; but i'm sure you'd have to see the end of Dark Knight to follow the third film.
but regardless, i wanted at least five films. :P
I hear ya on that. I don't really want them to stop with three films either, as long as they keep making good films. I'm okay with Nolan stopping with three if he really doesn't want to do more than that. But whatever he has planned, I hope he doesn't end his films in a way that's too crazy. I guess what I'm trying to say is I hope he doesn't plan on doing anything super drastic that would kill the franchise, like killing off Batman for instance, or having everyone discover that Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person. I'm really looking forward to what Nolan does next with the story. But whatever it is, I hope he at least leaves it open for another director to continue, should they decide to make more films after his run is over.
-
I say introduce Victor Freeze and Dick Grayson, have Nolan end it the way he wants, but I hope they leave it open because if another director fucks it up, we can all just say it ended after part 3, it was a great trilogy and the others never happened.
-
Some new updates from Nolan himself:
Beside opening up about his involvement in "Superman" franchise, Nolan also talks about "Batman 3", hinting that it probably will be the end of the story. "Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film an great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story. And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story... I'm very excited about the end of the film, the conclusion, and what we've done with the characters," he says.
continue the story? the first & second one aren't even relative lol.
he must mean the second going into the third; but i'll be extra tight if that's the last one. :grumpy:
Batman Begins and the Dark Knight are connected though. First film you essentially have Batman shutting down crime, second film you show the impact of Batman by having the Scarecrow be involved in some petty crime and bam a psycho had to come to shake things up in Gotham. Third film seems to be that it will continue with batman being seen as a villain.
i'm just saying, people told me they didn't even see Batman Begins & they had no problems following The Dark Knight.
the only thing was Scarecrow at the start of Dark Knight & that was basically irrelevant.
i guess if you want to super anaylze it, they're connected; but i'm sure you'd have to see the end of Dark Knight to follow the third film.
but regardless, i wanted at least five films. :P
I hear ya on that. I don't really want them to stop with three films either, as long as they keep making good films. I'm okay with Nolan stopping with three if he really doesn't want to do more than that. But whatever he has planned, I hope he doesn't end his films in a way that's too crazy. I guess what I'm trying to say is I hope he doesn't plan on doing anything super drastic that would kill the franchise, like killing off Batman for instance, or having everyone discover that Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person. I'm really looking forward to what Nolan does next with the story. But whatever it is, I hope he at least leaves it open for another director to continue, should they decide to make more films after his run is over.
I can't imagine Warner or DC letting that happen. Batman doesn't end. There's no end to the Batman story. It just keeps going. Giving a definitive end, especially in the case of a billion dollar movie franchise will make far too many fans think that this is how Batman starts and ends and that's not good for business.
A lot of common fans are idiots. I remember hearing a few people complain about Begins saying "I think it's stupid how Batman's parents die. Everyone knows Joker killed them." It's retarded and so are most of them. While they shouldn't expect much increase, DC should have an agenda to try and turn at least a small portion of fans of the film into fans of the books in some way shape or form, and ending Batman on screen would hurt that, already little, chance.
Personally I'd have DC make at least a few mini-series on the Nolan-universe Batman and follow the tone, style, and story of the films, and I'd have it start right after the end of the third film (if this is indeed Nolan's last one). It won't make many fans of the film bat an eye if they don't read comics, but I guarantee it'll attract of comic fans that don't buy everything Batman. I have never collected a Batman ongoing series, for more than and arc here and there, but if they released a monthly series from the film-universe I'd get every issue if it stayed true and didn't change everything. And I know a lot of other comic fans that don't read Batman books monthly that would do the same.
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words.
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
-
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
I've appreciated that about him so far. Dark Knight could have just as easily been a cop drama if it had different lead characters.
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words.
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
If you're talking about using a version of Penguin that is like what was used in Tim Burton's "Batman Returns," then I completely agree with you. Nolan has said that he will not use anything that leans too far into the realm of fantasy or the supernatural. So, your reasoning is sound. But if they took the character back to his comic book origin, he would still be on the table to use, as there was no supernatural element to the Penguin from the comics.
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words.
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
If you're talking about using a version of Penguin that is like what was used in Tim Burton's "Batman Returns," then I completely agree with you. Nolan has said that he will not use anything that leans too far into the realm of fantasy or the supernatural. So, your reasoning is sound. But if they took the character back to his comic book origin, he would still be on the table to use, as there was no supernatural element to the Penguin from the comics.
If he's just an arms dealer who likes tuxedo jackets and garnered the name penguin because of that and his stocky build that'd be fine. If he uses his umbrellas to fly then that would be stupid.
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words.
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
If you're talking about using a version of Penguin that is like what was used in Tim Burton's "Batman Returns," then I completely agree with you. Nolan has said that he will not use anything that leans too far into the realm of fantasy or the supernatural. So, your reasoning is sound. But if they took the character back to his comic book origin, he would still be on the table to use, as there was no supernatural element to the Penguin from the comics.
If he's just an arms dealer who likes tuxedo jackets and garnered the name penguin because of that and his stocky build that'd be fine. If he uses his umbrellas to fly then that would be stupid.
Yeah. I don't think they'd give him flying umbrellas or anything. They might give him a gun-umbrella or something. But I think if they used Penguin, he would be toned wayyy down from what Burton did.
-
Nolan will NEVER put The Penguin in his Batman movie! Mark my words.
I think Nolan said something about not wanting to go into the "supernatural" aspects of the previous Batman-universe(s).
If you're talking about using a version of Penguin that is like what was used in Tim Burton's "Batman Returns," then I completely agree with you. Nolan has said that he will not use anything that leans too far into the realm of fantasy or the supernatural. So, your reasoning is sound. But if they took the character back to his comic book origin, he would still be on the table to use, as there was no supernatural element to the Penguin from the comics.
If he's just an arms dealer who likes tuxedo jackets and garnered the name penguin because of that and his stocky build that'd be fine. If he uses his umbrellas to fly then that would be stupid.
Yeah. I don't think they'd give him flying umbrellas or anything. They might give him a gun-umbrella or something. But I think if they used Penguin, he would be toned wayyy down from what Burton did.
It would work if he's some out of town huge arms dealer and such who sees an opening in Gotham city. With every cop trying to hunt down Batman there's plenty of room for The Penguin to make money of the streets. Or how could just be qa new player on the streets that comes up in the absence of the old order which was all but taken out in the last film. The comic origin of being a bullied kid and getting the name Penguin because of his looks but hating the name works fine for a Nolan film. He comes up on the streets of Gotham and opens in nightclub, using it to strengthen his place in the Gotham underworld, and even plays informant to Batman in order for Bats to allow it to stay open. It's not rocket science.
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
Why do people try and downplay the connection? It's the same director, same writer, same actors playing the same characters, the same universe, and parts of both stories overlap. It's a sequel no matter how you look at it.
It's no less connected than Batman and Batman Returns or T1 and T2, and in T2 case it's almost more enjoyable if you've not seen T1 because of the similar plot.
Most sequels in Hollywood are stand alone films with the first film not being an absolute essential. Films like Lord of the Rings are the exception.
How many Hollywood sequels are really the same story drawn out over two films?
-
Part of the reason what makes The Dark Knight great is the fact that it continues the overall arc in story and character from Batman Begins. Now it seems to be even more evident that people liked The Dark Knight for it's candy coated surfaced. Don't get me wrong, it's not in depth as The Wire, but geez there is still some depth to it at least.
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
Why do people try and downplay the connection? It's the same director, same writer, same actors playing the same characters, the same universe, and parts of both stories overlap. It's a sequel no matter how you look at it.
It's no less connected than Batman and Batman Returns or T1 and T2, and in T2 case it's almost more enjoyable if you've not seen T1 because of the similar plot.
Most sequels in Hollywood are stand alone films with the first film not being an absolute essential. Films like Lord of the Rings are the exception.
How many Hollywood sequels are really the same story drawn out over two films?
nobody is denying that they are sequels, but the connection is just put there by people who choose to see the movie for more than just entertainment.
for example, me & 98% of the rest of the world see the movie for a thrilling, enjoyable film; not the connection between the Batman character from first movie to second.
it's not made for anylitcal purposes, but to kill the box office & it surely did.
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
Why do people try and downplay the connection? It's the same director, same writer, same actors playing the same characters, the same universe, and parts of both stories overlap. It's a sequel no matter how you look at it.
It's no less connected than Batman and Batman Returns or T1 and T2, and in T2 case it's almost more enjoyable if you've not seen T1 because of the similar plot.
Most sequels in Hollywood are stand alone films with the first film not being an absolute essential. Films like Lord of the Rings are the exception.
How many Hollywood sequels are really the same story drawn out over two films?
nobody is denying that they are sequels, but the connection is just put there by people who choose to see the movie for more than just entertainment.
for example, me & 98% of the rest of the world see the movie for a thrilling, enjoyable film; not the connection between the Batman character from first movie to second.
it's not made for anylitcal purposes, but to kill the box office & it surely did.
And you and 98% of the world are right, but you would also be right about 98% of all sequels. What are these magical sequels that are unwatchable unless seeing the first film first?
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
Why do people try and downplay the connection? It's the same director, same writer, same actors playing the same characters, the same universe, and parts of both stories overlap. It's a sequel no matter how you look at it.
It's no less connected than Batman and Batman Returns or T1 and T2, and in T2 case it's almost more enjoyable if you've not seen T1 because of the similar plot.
Most sequels in Hollywood are stand alone films with the first film not being an absolute essential. Films like Lord of the Rings are the exception.
How many Hollywood sequels are really the same story drawn out over two films?
nobody is denying that they are sequels, but the connection is just put there by people who choose to see the movie for more than just entertainment.
for example, me & 98% of the rest of the world see the movie for a thrilling, enjoyable film; not the connection between the Batman character from first movie to second.
it's not made for anylitcal purposes, but to kill the box office & it surely did.
And you and 98% of the world are right, but you would also be right about 98% of all sequels. What are these magical sequels that are unwatchable unless seeing the first film first?
i don't know, i didn't say a sequel had to be in direct relation with the first film.
BUT, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Godfather, Spiderman(?), Lethal Weapon(?), Transporter, Die Hard(?), i can't even think of other sequel movies.. :-[
-
Batman Begins and Dark Knight were connected, but the connection isn't huge, it's enough to show they are sequels, but in the end it's not essential to the over-all movie. can't wait though.
Why do people try and downplay the connection? It's the same director, same writer, same actors playing the same characters, the same universe, and parts of both stories overlap. It's a sequel no matter how you look at it.
It's no less connected than Batman and Batman Returns or T1 and T2, and in T2 case it's almost more enjoyable if you've not seen T1 because of the similar plot.
Most sequels in Hollywood are stand alone films with the first film not being an absolute essential. Films like Lord of the Rings are the exception.
How many Hollywood sequels are really the same story drawn out over two films?
nobody is denying that they are sequels, but the connection is just put there by people who choose to see the movie for more than just entertainment.
for example, me & 98% of the rest of the world see the movie for a thrilling, enjoyable film; not the connection between the Batman character from first movie to second.
it's not made for anylitcal purposes, but to kill the box office & it surely did.
And you and 98% of the world are right, but you would also be right about 98% of all sequels. What are these magical sequels that are unwatchable unless seeing the first film first?
i don't know, i didn't say a sequel had to be in direct relation with the first film.
BUT, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Godfather, Spiderman(?), Lethal Weapon(?), Transporter, Die Hard(?), i can't even think of other sequel movies.. :-[
Lord of the Rings is the only one where you can't watch it with out seeing the first one. I can easily watch Spiderman 2, GF 2, Empire Strikes Back, Transporter, or any of the Die Hards with out seeing the first in the series. Empire is the closest of the bunch, but you're telling me you can't watch Lethal Weapon 2 with out seeing the first, but you can watch Dark Knight with out seeing Begins? Because if so, it would make a lot of sense regarding your Tom Brady arguments. ;)
-
^i put "?" next to the ones i wasn't really sure about.
i couldn't even tell you what happened in Lethal Weapon 2; i haven't seen those in years.
just saying there are sequels where you need to see the first one, Dark Knight just isn't one of them.
-
just saying there are sequels where you need to see the first one, Dark Knight just isn't one of them.
And I'm just saying that those sequels are few and far between. I'd say over 90% of sequels are stand a lone stories that don't rely on the first film much at all.
-
just saying there are sequels where you need to see the first one, Dark Knight just isn't one of them.
And I'm just saying that those sequels are few and far between. I'd say over 90% of sequels are stand a lone stories that don't rely on the first film much at all.
so then i guess "downplaying" the connection isn't all that big a deal. ;)
-
just saying there are sequels where you need to see the first one, Dark Knight just isn't one of them.
And I'm just saying that those sequels are few and far between. I'd say over 90% of sequels are stand a lone stories that don't rely on the first film much at all.
so then i guess "downplaying" the connection isn't all that big a deal. ;)
No, down playing the connection is as retarded as saying T1 and T2 aren't connected. You need to watch the first film to fully grasp the second. And that goes for both Batman and Terminator. But watching the first films aren't essential to following the story of the second film.
Another aspect you seem to miss and take for granted is you already know Batman, I'm assuming, and know him pretty well. You understand who he is, what he does. It makes sense to you to see a man dressed as a giant bat fighting crime. I know the target audience isn't so young but I know for a fact that if I was 6 years old right now I'd want to see Dark Knight, probably borrowed from a friends older brother's collection, and at 6 years old Begins would have come out when I was 2. I'd have no real frame of reference with regards to Batman and it would be essential for me at 6 to watch Begins in order to understand Dark Knight. And much more so than with most sequels.
So what I'm saying is to those that know not of Batman or Superheros Batman Begins is essential viewing.
-
LOL at the discussion. If I was to watch Dark Knight without watching Batman Begins, I will catch on and it will be a great movie for me. Now my wife, I love her, but she could care less about Batman. She watches Dark Knight, she's asking me all movie long why is this dude in a bat suit fighting the Joker. She watches Batman Begins, then watches Dark Knight, she understood and I watched Dark Knight in peace.
-
LOL at the discussion. If I was to watch Dark Knight without watching Batman Begins, I will catch on and it will be a great movie for me. Now my wife, I love her, but she could care less about Batman. She watches Dark Knight, she's asking me all movie long why is this dude in a bat suit fighting the Joker. She watches Batman Begins, then watches Dark Knight, she understood and I watched Dark Knight in peace.
Thank you for proving my point.
-
LOL at the discussion. If I was to watch Dark Knight without watching Batman Begins, I will catch on and it will be a great movie for me. Now my wife, I love her, but she could care less about Batman. She watches Dark Knight, she's asking me all movie long why is this dude in a bat suit fighting the Joker. She watches Batman Begins, then watches Dark Knight, she understood and I watched Dark Knight in peace.
Thank you for proving my point.
Hey, we can agree sometimes.
-
LOL at the discussion. If I was to watch Dark Knight without watching Batman Begins, I will catch on and it will be a great movie for me. Now my wife, I love her, but she could care less about Batman. She watches Dark Knight, she's asking me all movie long why is this dude in a bat suit fighting the Joker. She watches Batman Begins, then watches Dark Knight, she understood and I watched Dark Knight in peace.
Thank you for proving my point.
Hey, we can agree sometimes.
I didn't know we disagreed that much?
-
No, it's more like I think the top 3 greatest rappers are like 'Pac, Nas and Rakim in that order, and you'll be like, no it's Rakim, 'Pac and Nas (not really my opinion but an example). So it's always been small stuff.
Back to Batman, I'm still mad Bain wouldn't be in it. It would have been perfect. I can see Mr. Freeze in 4, which if they pull off right (see Batman TAS) then it could actually make for a damn good movie, and a great recovery for that movie that never happened.
-
News about the third Batman movie! Interview with one of the insiders reveals much about the story, don't know if it's legit though...:
What can you tell us about the title of the next Batman film?
I've heard rumblings about titles like 'The Caped Crusader', 'Gotham Knights' and even 'Batman Triumphant' which has been floating around for many years. I honestly don't know, because the Nolans (Chris and Jonathan) and David Goyer remain undecided, but it does appear they are looking to once again incorporate the name Batman into the title. Apparently this film is about reestablishing the caped crusader as a hero to the citizens of Gotham.
Yeah, but how are they going to do that? At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman became a wanted fugitive for the crimes of Harvey Dent.
It's going to come out that Dent was behind the murders which occurred in the last film and the main villain of this new movie is behind the release of that info.
The main villain? Is there going to be more than one?
There's going to be several, but the Nolans want to get it right, they don't want a rogue's gallery that will confuse the audience. Chris Nolan and Leonardo DiCaprio were talking on set about how they were big fans of the Hush storyline in the comics, but if they were to incorporate the character he wouldn't dominate the film. Nolan knows that he will never be able to top Heath Ledger's Joker and he's not even going to try. It seems like the idea is to overwhelm Batman with so many criminals that he and Bruce Wayne will be near exhaustion. The idea is to have the story take place over several weeks where Bruce Wayne will be suffering from intense sleep deprivation.
So do you see DiCaprio as Hush?
I doubt it, because DiCaprio would be crazy to play second fiddle in a film like this where his character is basically masked. Actually Nolan said Hugh Jackman was interested, but that may not happen either. Then there's others like the Riddler and Cluemaster I think. They might actually merge those two characters.
So who would play the Riddler? Johnny Depp?
No. That would be nice, but they're actually looking at Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is in Inception. There were rumors of him playing the Joker, but Nolan would never attempt to replace Heath. He said what they might do is show an imprisoned Joker in shadow in Arkham Asylum. Batman comes there to get some info from Scarecrow and is taunted by Joker when he passes his cell. It would actually be Heath's voice taken from unused line readings on set from Dark Knight. Probably a sentence or two, but enough to push Batman's buttons. Then they also might use Penguin or Black Mask to head up what's left of the mob. It may have looked like Sal Moroni died in Dark Knight, but Eric Roberts is said to be coming back as well.
What about Catwoman? Is she in it. Do they want Angelina Jolie?
She actually starts off the story, working for the mob to pull off the theft of a lost family heirloom for Penguin and Batman is impressed he can't catch her. When he's faced with the task of taking down all these criminals, she actually comes to his aid after he saves her life. Apparently, she is the love interest now that Rachel Dawes is dead and connects with both Bruce and Batman. It's gonna be the first time we see a tender and vulnerable side of Batman because even though she's a criminal, he slowly realizes he's falling for her. Bruce Wayne has begun to accept that his role as Batman is a lifetime job and he's found someone who truly understands him. From what I heard, Kate Beckinsale's name has come up, but they are seriously looking at Emily Blunt after her work in Wolfman.
Any more you could share about the mob angle? Is it just Maroni or...
Either Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin or Black Mask will come into play. If they go with Cobblepot, he won't flat out be the Penguin like Burgess Meredith or Danny DeVito, that's just supposed to be a nickname that stuck. It's gonna be somewhat like mobster Ben Siegel who hated being called Bugsy. Ray Winstone is a guy that Nolan has always wanted to work with and was actually unavailable for a role in Inception. I think he might work, but I don't know who they would cast as Black Mask if they chose him.
Besides Maroni and Cobblepot, the people from Gambol's (Michael Jai White) organization want revenge too. Supposedly he has a brother that's going to come in from the East Coast to shake things up. He's actually a former mobster that's gone almost 100 percent legit and wants Maroni dead for unleashing the Joker upon Gambol. Supposedly he makes a deal with Batman to get him information that will get Maroni out of the picture. It's a nice subplot, but I can't get over that Nolan is looking at Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson for the role. Apparently, Nolan is good friends with Jim Sheridan who directed Get Rich or Die Tryin who speaks very highly of 50 Cent.
So Nolan said the ending would bring things full circle and be a real ending to the story. Is that true, do you know anything about it?
Obviously Warner Bros. is not gonna let him give this film a definitive ending. Chris actually said he was playing with the idea of ending the third film with a cliffhanger. The city will embrace Batman again because the main villain plays one last hand by destroying Arkham, releasing every major criminal including the Joker. Batman is not going to be worried, because by the end of the film he's accepted his destiny and knows he will succeed with the help of Gordon, Alfred, Lucius Fox and maybe even Catwoman. It's not gonna be a real cliffhanger in the sense that you know he's Batman and will prevail long after the credits are over. Chris has many other project in mind, including doing a proper version of The Prisoner, but he and Bale have discussed the possibility of doing a story in the vein of The Dark Knight Returns in another ten to fifteen years. I think Warners will let him have his way. They're pushing him to go with 3-D but its more than likely that he'll get to shoot it entirely in IMAX this time like he wanted to with Dark Knight.
Looks like the Joker isn't gonna be in there except for a small cameo in the shadow. >:( :( Fuck that! I want the Joker back!!! I know they can find a (unknown) actor that looks and acts just like Heath!
-
News about the third Batman movie! Interview with one of the insiders reveals much about the story, don't know if it's legit though...:
What can you tell us about the title of the next Batman film?
I've heard rumblings about titles like 'The Caped Crusader', 'Gotham Knights' and even 'Batman Triumphant' which has been floating around for many years. I honestly don't know, because the Nolans (Chris and Jonathan) and David Goyer remain undecided, but it does appear they are looking to once again incorporate the name Batman into the title. Apparently this film is about reestablishing the caped crusader as a hero to the citizens of Gotham.
Yeah, but how are they going to do that? At the end of The Dark Knight, Batman became a wanted fugitive for the crimes of Harvey Dent.
It's going to come out that Dent was behind the murders which occurred in the last film and the main villain of this new movie is behind the release of that info.
The main villain? Is there going to be more than one?
There's going to be several, but the Nolans want to get it right, they don't want a rogue's gallery that will confuse the audience. Chris Nolan and Leonardo DiCaprio were talking on set about how they were big fans of the Hush storyline in the comics, but if they were to incorporate the character he wouldn't dominate the film. Nolan knows that he will never be able to top Heath Ledger's Joker and he's not even going to try. It seems like the idea is to overwhelm Batman with so many criminals that he and Bruce Wayne will be near exhaustion. The idea is to have the story take place over several weeks where Bruce Wayne will be suffering from intense sleep deprivation.
So do you see DiCaprio as Hush?
I doubt it, because DiCaprio would be crazy to play second fiddle in a film like this where his character is basically masked. Actually Nolan said Hugh Jackman was interested, but that may not happen either. Then there's others like the Riddler and Cluemaster I think. They might actually merge those two characters.
So who would play the Riddler? Johnny Depp?
No. That would be nice, but they're actually looking at Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is in Inception. There were rumors of him playing the Joker, but Nolan would never attempt to replace Heath. He said what they might do is show an imprisoned Joker in shadow in Arkham Asylum. Batman comes there to get some info from Scarecrow and is taunted by Joker when he passes his cell. It would actually be Heath's voice taken from unused line readings on set from Dark Knight. Probably a sentence or two, but enough to push Batman's buttons. Then they also might use Penguin or Black Mask to head up what's left of the mob. It may have looked like Sal Moroni died in Dark Knight, but Eric Roberts is said to be coming back as well.
What about Catwoman? Is she in it. Do they want Angelina Jolie?
She actually starts off the story, working for the mob to pull off the theft of a lost family heirloom for Penguin and Batman is impressed he can't catch her. When he's faced with the task of taking down all these criminals, she actually comes to his aid after he saves her life. Apparently, she is the love interest now that Rachel Dawes is dead and connects with both Bruce and Batman. It's gonna be the first time we see a tender and vulnerable side of Batman because even though she's a criminal, he slowly realizes he's falling for her. Bruce Wayne has begun to accept that his role as Batman is a lifetime job and he's found someone who truly understands him. From what I heard, Kate Beckinsale's name has come up, but they are seriously looking at Emily Blunt after her work in Wolfman.
Any more you could share about the mob angle? Is it just Maroni or...
Either Oswald Cobblepot aka The Penguin or Black Mask will come into play. If they go with Cobblepot, he won't flat out be the Penguin like Burgess Meredith or Danny DeVito, that's just supposed to be a nickname that stuck. It's gonna be somewhat like mobster Ben Siegel who hated being called Bugsy. Ray Winstone is a guy that Nolan has always wanted to work with and was actually unavailable for a role in Inception. I think he might work, but I don't know who they would cast as Black Mask if they chose him.
Besides Maroni and Cobblepot, the people from Gambol's (Michael Jai White) organization want revenge too. Supposedly he has a brother that's going to come in from the East Coast to shake things up. He's actually a former mobster that's gone almost 100 percent legit and wants Maroni dead for unleashing the Joker upon Gambol. Supposedly he makes a deal with Batman to get him information that will get Maroni out of the picture. It's a nice subplot, but I can't get over that Nolan is looking at Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson for the role. Apparently, Nolan is good friends with Jim Sheridan who directed Get Rich or Die Tryin who speaks very highly of 50 Cent.
So Nolan said the ending would bring things full circle and be a real ending to the story. Is that true, do you know anything about it?
Obviously Warner Bros. is not gonna let him give this film a definitive ending. Chris actually said he was playing with the idea of ending the third film with a cliffhanger. The city will embrace Batman again because the main villain plays one last hand by destroying Arkham, releasing every major criminal including the Joker. Batman is not going to be worried, because by the end of the film he's accepted his destiny and knows he will succeed with the help of Gordon, Alfred, Lucius Fox and maybe even Catwoman. It's not gonna be a real cliffhanger in the sense that you know he's Batman and will prevail long after the credits are over. Chris has many other project in mind, including doing a proper version of The Prisoner, but he and Bale have discussed the possibility of doing a story in the vein of The Dark Knight Returns in another ten to fifteen years. I think Warners will let him have his way. They're pushing him to go with 3-D but its more than likely that he'll get to shoot it entirely in IMAX this time like he wanted to with Dark Knight.
Looks like the Joker isn't gonna be in there except for a small cameo in the shadow. >:( :( Fuck that! I want the Joker back!!! I know they can find a (unknown) actor that looks and acts just like Heath!
Don't know if this is legit either, but I really like a lot of the ideas that are in here. If they take the third movie in a direction like this, I think it could be reallly cool. Can't wait until there are some official announcements about casting and maybe some hints at the actual plot.
-
Summer 2012!!!! ;D
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTU5NTE5NjIwM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjAyOTg2MQ@@._V1._SY140_.jpg)
Warner Bros. isn't about to let little detals like no title, no production start date and no locked-down plot stop it from setting up a tentpole, as the studio today announced a July 20, 2012, release date for the third installment of the rebooted Batman franchise.
Christian Bale will be back in the cowl under the direction of Christopher Nolan.
With the release date now set, Nolan is currently hashing out a story for the Dark Knight followup, which already faces some steep competition. Also headed to the big screen in 2012: The Avengers (May 4), Battleship (May 25), Star Trek 2 (June 29), and what will likely be the Bat's biggest competition: the Spider-Man reboot's reboot (July 3).
Read more: http://uk.eonline.com/uberblog/b178986_ready_summer_2012_here_comes_batman_3.html?utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=imdb_tv-movies#ixzz0mhBhULmu
-
According to IMDB.com today, the movie Inception starring Leonardo Dicaprio is finally finished! This means Christopher Nolan will have a little break for his vacation and then will focus 100% on the new Batman movie!
1. Untitled Batman Project (2012) (pre-production)
2. Inception (2010) (completed)
... aka "Inception: The IMAX Experience" - USA (IMAX version)
-
Damn that's a long time. Should be AMAZING though!
-
Damn that's a long time. Should be AMAZING though!
I agree, but I think we can safely say that it will be worth the wait!!! Inception is coming out in July 2010 and will be amazing also! :o
-
i can wait for nolan 10 years, no problem. im used to waiting for big directors to come up with some great stuff
-
Joker will not be re-cast... :( Read below:
Ever since The Dark Knight came out fanboys have been screaming how it's the best comic book movie to have ever been made. (It isn't.) One of the reasons they think this is Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. After Heath pill popped his way into the clouds above, questions arose as to what would happen to the character. Would he be recast? Would he appear only in shadows at Arkham?
Obsessedwithfilm.com, who thinks they've stumbled upon the scoop of the century from reading an interview out of a magazine, noticed this in Empire's Nolan interview:
There is the ever-lurking question about villains: who will The Dark Knight tussle with this time… Could it possibly be a returning (and recast) Joker, pulling strings from Arkham, Lecter-style, Empire wonders?
“No”, says Nolan emphatically and unhesitatingly. He resists elaborating simply because, quite understandably, he says, “I just don’t feel comfortable talking about it”.
Obsessedwithfilm also says:
So that’s it, all the two year speculation on the ethics behind a potential re-casting of the late Heath Ledger in his Oscar winning, iconic role can be put to bed. THE JOKER WON’T APPEAR IN BATMAN 3. Presumably we have to imagine him for the time being as a mental patient locked up in Arkham Asylum.
Now, it's too early to actually say if The Joker will or will not appear in Batman 3. At least for now, Nolan is saying he won't recast the part. Meaning we won't actually see his face. But Hollywood is a strange and wonderous town. He could appear as a shadow locked up behind bars, his voice done by someone else. Who knows. Nolan isn't comfortable talking about it right now, but things can change. So if Joker is 100% gone from Bats 3, does this mean Bane is the lone bad guy? Who else could be the bad guy? I don't see The Riddler or Penguin as Nolan type villains.
-
If dark knight isnt the best comic book Im curious what they think is,ghost rider?lol
-
If dark knight isnt the best comic book Im curious what they think is,ghost rider?lol
word, i can't think of a better one.
-
If dark knight isnt the best comic book Im curious what they think is,ghost rider?lol
word, i can't think of a better one.
I wouldn't call any superhero or comic film better than DK, but I did like Begins and I though Sin City was just as good.
-
and what will likely be the Bat's biggest competition: the Spider-Man reboot's reboot (July 3).
lol, its a little early for a reboot. Whatever it takes to get another Spiderman out there I guess.
-
If dark knight isnt the best comic book Im curious what they think is,ghost rider?lol
There's been quite a few great films based on comic books. For me the best is between Sin City, BB and The Dark Knight, V For Vendetta, and Iron Man.
-
and what will likely be the Bat's biggest competition: the Spider-Man reboot's reboot (July 3).
lol, its a little early for a reboot. Whatever it takes to get another Spiderman out there I guess.
Yeah,the decision to reboot the franchise is ridiulous.As bas a spider man 3 was, they could ahve just hired a new director and gone in a different direction.I was never huge on tobey maguire as spider man,he was a little TOO geekey for my tastes.I still cant believe how badly they butchered venom though,just a disgrace.Im curious what direction the reboot will take.
-
and what will likely be the Bat's biggest competition: the Spider-Man reboot's reboot (July 3).
lol, its a little early for a reboot. Whatever it takes to get another Spiderman out there I guess.
Yeah,the decision to reboot the franchise is ridiulous.As bas a spider man 3 was, they could ahve just hired a new director and gone in a different direction.I was never huge on tobey maguire as spider man,he was a little TOO geekey for my tastes.I still cant believe how badly they butchered venom though,just a disgrace.Im curious what direction the reboot will take.
Personally, I don't think the director was the problem. Although I agree that if they just had to make a movie with Venom then Sam Raimi was not the right choice. He had said in interviews conducted prior to "Spider-Man 3" being made that he didn't "get" the Venom character. But at the behest of Avi Arad, he put the character in the movie anyway. To me, "Spider-Man 3" could have been on par with the first two movies if they hadn't forced using the Venom character on Raimi. I thought the Harry Osborne/Peter Parker story that had been building since the first movie was wrapped up nicely. And the Sandman story line seemed pretty good as well. It wasn't until they tried to squeeze the Venom character in, in addition to everything else, that the movie started to fall apart. If the studio had let Raimi make the movie he wanted to make instead of hijacking his movie partway through the process, I think "Spider-man 3" would have turned out fine.
-
Eh,I think raimi took the camp value way too high in the third one.And the sandman character isnt strong enough to support a movie.And the whole film was awful not just venom.From the oh THAT guy didnt kill your uncle THIS guy did to the story tothe out of control crane where spiderman saved the girl then it skips to the next scene with no explanation of how he stopped the crane,the film was top to bottom just plain terrible.
-
Spiderman was built on camp and bad humor. Without it you have dry whiny ass toby reluctantly saving people. that shit is not cool. i want charismatic smart ass old spiderman back.
-
Spiderman was built on camp and bad humor. Without it you have dry whiny ass toby reluctantly saving people. that shit is not cool. i want charismatic smart ass old spiderman back.
Watch season 1 of the recent TV series Spectacular Spiderman.
-
Eh,I think raimi took the camp value way too high in the third one.And the sandman character isnt strong enough to support a movie.And the whole film was awful not just venom.From the oh THAT guy didnt kill your uncle THIS guy did to the story tothe out of control crane where spiderman saved the girl then it skips to the next scene with no explanation of how he stopped the crane,the film was top to bottom just plain terrible.
The camp/slapstick factor is in both of the first two "Spider-man" films as well, though. Actually, for that matter, it's in pretty much every movie that Sam Raimi has ever directed. I'm not saying you're wrong about it because it's definitely there, but if you had a problem with it in "Spider-man 3," I'm not sure why you didn't mind it in the original "Spider-man" and "Spider-man 2." I also didn't like that they changed the story about who killed Uncle Ben, but I was willing to go along with that because it at least made sense in the context of the story they were trying to tell. But the part with Venom was obviously an after-thought. To me, it was the worst part of the movie. It just seemed "tacked-on." And it isn't really until Venom shows up that the movie really begins to venture into "Batman Forever" territory.
I agree with you though that it's ridiculous that they want to reboot the franchise this early. IMO, they're only doing this because they wanted a director who wouldn't mind taking even more notes from the studio. I mean, "Spider-Man 4" was already in pre-production with all of the regulars (including Raimi) coming back, when they pulled the plug on it. Raimi had been very vocal in interviews leading up to it's cancellation that if he directed "Spider-man 4," he wanted to do it his way again. The director they ended up going with, Mar Webb, only has one movie under his belt at this point, so he is largely untested.
If they had to do a reboot, it's a shame Marvel Studios couldn't get the rights back for "Spider-man," they're the only studio that I currently have any faith in any more, when it comes to doing movies based on Marvel comics.
-
I realize camp was a part of all the films and raimi in general,evil dead triology is amazing.But the third one was overboard and really cheesey.But spider man doesnt need camp to be entertaining,humour yes,but camp,nah,this isnt the 60s.
-
New rumor:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt to play the Riddler? Hollywood Life reports that while working on the film Inception with director Christopher Nolan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt mentioned that he'd love to audition for The Riddler in Batman 3.
Apparently, this sort of talk continued and the site now says that Levitt is being considered by Nolan for the part.
"Chris really dug Joseph [as an actor]," a source close to the director stated. "There was a joke at first between them [on the set of Inception] that Joseph wanted to read for Batman 3 and things heated up as filming continued."
This unnamed source then went on to say:
"It's not 100% confirmed that he's getting [the role of The Riddler] but there's certainly talk about it. Joseph is definitely on the short list."
David S. Goyer is presently hard at work writing the screenplay for the next installment in the Batman saga.
Batman 3 comes to theaters July 20th, 2012
-
New rumor:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt to play the Riddler? Hollywood Life reports that while working on the film Inception with director Christopher Nolan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt mentioned that he'd love to audition for The Riddler in Batman 3.
Apparently, this sort of talk continued and the site now says that Levitt is being considered by Nolan for the part.
"Chris really dug Joseph [as an actor]," a source close to the director stated. "There was a joke at first between them [on the set of Inception] that Joseph wanted to read for Batman 3 and things heated up as filming continued."
This unnamed source then went on to say:
"It's not 100% confirmed that he's getting [the role of The Riddler] but there's certainly talk about it. Joseph is definitely on the short list."
David S. Goyer is presently hard at work writing the screenplay for the next installment in the Batman saga.
Batman 3 comes to theaters July 20th, 2012
Allways thought that Joseph Gordon Levitt looks like Heath Ledger...
-
He's a great actor, that would be awesome.
-
I realize camp was a part of all the films and raimi in general,evil dead triology is amazing.But the third one was overboard and really cheesey.But spider man doesnt need camp to be entertaining,humour yes,but camp,nah,this isnt the 60s.
Agree that camp isn't needed in Spider-man. I don't ever remember reading a Spider-man comic that was campy. That was just an element that Raimi brought to the film. But I still can't see how it didn't bother you in the first two "Spider-man" movies but did bother you in the third. Those cheesey elements were just as prevalent in the first two films.
To me, Venom is what really screwed the third movie up. And it's not that I don't like the character. I think Venom could have been done very well. But it's just the way they added him to the movie. It was like they were trying to force two movies worth of material into a single movie. And that's how it played on screen-forced. To me, "Spider-man 3" wasn't bad until the final act, where it fell apart.
Since they're getting a new director for the reboot, I doubt we'll see the campy element in the new movie. However, I don't think by any means, we're guaranteed to get a good movie. This director might pull it off, but he's only done one other movie, going in. I've heard rumors that they might be trying to do the "Ultimate Spider-man" storyline with this reboot. I think that could be cool, but I'd have a lot more confidence in it working if Marvel Studios was doing the movie rather than Sony.
-
New rumor:
Joseph Gordon-Levitt to play the Riddler? Hollywood Life reports that while working on the film Inception with director Christopher Nolan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt mentioned that he'd love to audition for The Riddler in Batman 3.
Apparently, this sort of talk continued and the site now says that Levitt is being considered by Nolan for the part.
"Chris really dug Joseph [as an actor]," a source close to the director stated. "There was a joke at first between them [on the set of Inception] that Joseph wanted to read for Batman 3 and things heated up as filming continued."
This unnamed source then went on to say:
"It's not 100% confirmed that he's getting [the role of The Riddler] but there's certainly talk about it. Joseph is definitely on the short list."
David S. Goyer is presently hard at work writing the screenplay for the next installment in the Batman saga.
Batman 3 comes to theaters July 20th, 2012
If he were to really be playing a major character in "Batman 3," I'd say Riddler would be a good guess. Being that Nolan's Batman is grounded in a "realistic universe," my guess is that for 3 we will probably see either Penguin or Riddler. The only other possibility I could see is that they go with an even more obscure character. But some of Batman's more supernatural or science-fiction-oriented characters can probably be ruled out immediately. Like Mr. Freeze, for example. Nolan has already stated he won't use him. Whoever it is, I'm really interested in seeing how they will follow up "The Dark Knight." That's going to be a difficult movie to top.
-
After Nolan take off tha bosses of mob, you know, Falcone, and Maroni, Dustin Hoffman will be cool as an old type gangster, as Penguin. :o :o
what U think?
-
Lol @ people worrying about what villain will be used next. You don't seem to realize that there are tons of Batman villains to use. The comic has been around for 70 years, there's a shitload to choose from. He doesn't have to use a famous one like Penguin or the Riddler. Batman Begins didn't even do that. I didn't even know who Henri Ducard was before the movie. That's what I like about Nolan's series, he doesn't have to rely on "selling" a character for each movie. As long as they just focus on making a good movie I'll be satisified.
-
Lol @ people worrying about what villain will be used next. You don't seem to realize that there are tons of Batman villains to use. The comic has been around for 70 years, there's a shitload to choose from. He doesn't have to use a famous one like Penguin or the Riddler. Batman Begins didn't even do that. I didn't even know who Henri Ducard was before the movie. That's what I like about Nolan's series, he doesn't have to rely on "selling" a character for each movie. As long as they just focus on making a good movie I'll be satisified.
Henri Ducard was a great villain in "Batman Begins." But he also didn't have anything to do with R'as Al Ghul in the comic books. He was a fairly obscure character from back when Dennis O'Neil was writing for Batman 40 years ago, so I don't know how anyone was supposed to guess they would use him as a villain. In the original comics he's just one of the many people who trained Bruce Wayne in his early years, prior to becoming Batman.
-
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45451
Some Q and A with Christopher Nolan from an Ain't it Cool News article. Nolan "ethers" 3-D with some technical jargon that's admittedly way over my head. Nolan's the man, though. And while I've already been impressed with him as a story-teller, it's pretty interesting to read how technically savvy the guy is as well. They touch on "Batman 3" in here, very briefly, although this is mostly about "Insomnia," "The Dark Knight," and "Inception." Still a good read.
-
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45451
Some Q and A with Christopher Nolan from an Ain't it Cool News article. Nolan "ethers" 3-D with some technical jargon that's admittedly way over my head. Nolan's the man, though. And while I've already been impressed with him as a story-teller, it's pretty interesting to read how technically savvy the guy is as well. They touch on "Batman 3" in here, very briefly, although this is mostly about "Insomnia," "The Dark Knight," and "Inception." Still a good read.
Thanks a lot man! Very interesting! Inception is gonna be sick too!!! :o Check the other thread about Inception for the trailers etc.
Fuck 3D, I hope Nolan will focus on shooting the whole Batman 3 movie in IMAX!!! :o
-
I think Venom could have been done very well. But it's just the way they added him to the movie. It was like they were trying to force two movies worth of material into a single movie. And that's how it played on screen-forced. To me, "Spider-man 3" wasn't bad until the final act, where it fell apart.
-
I think Venom could have been done very well. But it's just the way they added him to the movie. It was like they were trying to force two movies worth of material into a single movie. And that's how it played on screen-forced. To me, "Spider-man 3" wasn't bad until the final act, where it fell apart.
Completely agree with that. It did seem like they were trying to force two movies worth of storyline into one movie.