http://screenrant.com/chris-nolan-batman-3-characters-villains-plot-story-kofi-19537/
Good article. I didn't know that Nolan didn't want to do a part 3.
I thought Nolan was up for one more. Would be quite depressing if he isn't.
I like this guy's thinking. I would be happy with a plot like that.
Yikes, I hope this isn't the case. Dark Victory is iffy at best, and has just too many villains for a film to do justice to any of them (learn the lessons of the previous Bat-series & Spider-man 3!). Not to mention that, while Batman Begins & Dark Knight are partially influenced by Year One & the Long Halloween, as much of their stories & characters are taken from other sources.
I think Nolan was basically a sure things as director until two things happened: Heath Ledger died, and the film went on to be the second largest grossing film ever. A third film is unlikely to top that success or live up to expectations, so it might be easier just to bow out first. Now, the dump truck full of money Warner Bros will drive up to his lawn may change his mind, but it may not.
From what I have heard, Nolan is on record saying that he doesn't want to do a third unless there is a quality story there. He is working on a movie called "Inception" currently and will not address the prospects of future projects till he is done with what he is currently working on. Once that is done shooting, I suspect Nolan will look at his options. I also suspect that we will see a third Batman film with Nolan at the helm.
At comic-con Gary Oldman said they start filming Batman 3 in 2010. :blink:
Yeah, but then Oldman recanted, so either the WB told him off for talking, or he was guessing.
Or he was telling the truth and this is all smoke and mirrors to keep fans from harping on the internet about every detail of Batman that comes out. We will only find out about the movie once it is announced at Comic-con two years from now.
I think what needs to be remembered even if they do use Dark Victory (which I wouldn't say is set in stone... Year 1 and Long Halloween are pretty much Batman classics, and many of the themes they contain about Batman's beginnings were echoed before and after they came out... Batman Annual 14 being a great example of the Dent/Gordon/Batman triangle existing prior to LH. Dark Victory, on the other hand, wasn't at the same level... About the only really good theme from it was the intro of Dick Grayson, and that's something Nolan's basically written off.) is that it won't be the exact same story, and it certainly won't OD on villains... in fact, if you need proof of that, look at Long Halloween. Here's a book that has dozens of villains in it, but we only had 3 in TDK... and one was little more than a cameo role.
However, on the villain note... see, if I were trying to set myself up further down the line, I think I'd want to cram as many cameo villains into my first film as possible. Not major roles, mind you... because having 20+ villains all concocting a major plot together would be silly and overdone, but like... Introduce a Selina Kyle during one of Bruce Wayne's parties in one scene, or have Edward Nigma gatecrash, something to give the audience a preview of what is to come. One of the problems with movies at the moment, and I think this is why many start to fall apart at movie 3... you're not setting up ideas for the long term.
For instance, look at the Harry Potter series of movies. Here is a series that has gone through 6 very successful movies... and will very likely make it to 8 successful movies. It is certainly not because every movie has topped the last one, which everyone seems to expect of Batman now, but because the story is easily broken down into chunks, but never truly stops.
I think there is a good possibility that 2010 will see the casting of the third Batman movie but definitely not the release. I could see maybe some build up for it ala the viral marketing campaign but I doubt the shooting and post would be done any sooner than the middle of 2011. And WB would want a third Batman movie as a summer movie.
Unless Nolan readies really quick after he finishes Inception or WB finds another director then we will not see a third bat movie till 2012. Though, I can't help but feel that something is already going on behind the scenes. It could be that Jonathan Nolan is already working on a Batman 3 script for his brother while his brother shoots Inception.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on August 04, 2009, 02:03:46 PM
I think there is a good possibility that 2010 will see the casting of the third Batman movie but definitely not the release. I could see maybe some build up for it ala the viral marketing campaign but I doubt the shooting and post would be done any sooner than the middle of 2011. And WB would want a third Batman movie as a summer movie.
Unless Nolan readies really quick after he finishes Inception or WB finds another director then we will not see a third bat movie till 2012. Though, I can't help but feel that something is already going on behind the scenes. It could be that Jonathan Nolan is already working on a Batman 3 script for his brother while his brother shoots Inception.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you here. I doubt that there isn't any work being done on Batman 3, or even that there hasn't been any script progress. I could see it being released in the Summer of 2011, though.
Batman 3 May Feature Riddler, Penguin, Mr. Freeze?and Robin (http://www.cinemaspy.com/article.php?id=3997)
1. The Riddler is the primary villain and he figures out Batman's identity.
2. Arkham Asylum will figure prominently in the story.
3. Several classic villains will cameo, including the Penguin and Mr. Freeze (though as Dr. Fries, not as the supervillain).
4. Barbara Gordon will have a featured role.
5. Commissioner Gordon will mention Metropolis and possibly Lex Luthor.
6. Dick Grayson may be in the movie (though probably not as Robin).
1. The Riddler is the primary villain and he figures out Batman's identity.
This can work out great if they find a good actor and a decent storyline for him
2. Arkham Asylum will figure prominently in the story.
YES!!
3. Several classic villains will cameo, including the Penguin and Mr. Freeze (though as Dr. Fries, not as the supervillain).
Dr. Fries (cool) but instead of Penguin put Hugo Strange
4. Barbara Gordon will have a featured role.
The daughter or the wife? The wife name was Barbara too
5. Commissioner Gordon will mention Metropolis and possibly Lex Luthor.
Yes!!
6. Dick Grayson may be in the movie (though probably not as Robin).
There's no need to put Grayson in the movie
The Riddler's okay, I guess... but color me doubtful that he's a good movie villain for a Nolan film that fits the Dark Knight mold. Because you can only convincingly do Riddler in one of two ways: Over-The-Top-Frank-Gorshin, or the plotter whose schemes stretch Batman's intelligence and detective skills to their limits. I'm not sure I want to sit through either of those.
But I'm at a loss for what would be a better option. As much as I'd like to see Catwoman done (right) as Batman's counterpart, I can't think of a convincing storyline that would work. The fight scenes and the sexual tension would work, but what motive would inspire a whole movie? What other Batman villains could you bring into the real world?
I can understand mixed feelings about Robin... but he does figure very large in Batman's history in the comics. Can you ignore that indefinitely? Maybe. I can't think of a good way to introduce that, either. But please, please spare us from Batgirl.
They didn't say Batgirl, they said Barbara Gordon. Seeing she apparently wasn't even born in the last movie, and that Gordon's family is featured in both movies, she will probably be an infant or toddler who either get's kidnapped as part of a villain's scheme, or else becomes endangered or harmed in the course of it. If that part is even right in the first place.
Eh, that article seems highly suspect. An unknown source, a whole lot of specifics about a movie whose script is only just beginning to be crafted, and a number of things (like Dick Grayson) who the director has publicly spoken against before. Take this one with a good dose of salt is my opinion.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on February 11, 2010, 10:19:08 PM
They didn't say Batgirl, they said Barbara Gordon. Seeing she apparently wasn't even born in the last movie, and that Gordon's family is featured in both movies, she will probably be an infant or toddler who either get's kidnapped as part of a villain's scheme, or else becomes endangered or harmed in the course of it. If that part is even right in the first place.
Actually, Babs is Gordon's adopted daughter, named after Jim's wife Barbara. According to this, there is more to it, i'll see if i can track it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Gordon#Bronze_Age
Quote from: Midnite on February 11, 2010, 01:33:08 AM
Batman 3 May Feature Riddler, Penguin, Mr. Freeze?and Robin (http://www.cinemaspy.com/article.php?id=3997)
1. The Riddler is the primary villain and he figures out Batman's identity.
2. Arkham Asylum will figure prominently in the story.
3. Several classic villains will cameo, including the Penguin and Mr. Freeze (though as Dr. Fries, not as the supervillain).
4. Barbara Gordon will have a featured role.
5. Commissioner Gordon will mention Metropolis and possibly Lex Luthor.
6. Dick Grayson may be in the movie (though probably not as Robin).
I call bull on at least parts. Batman 3 will not begin being prepped for at least another two or three months I am guessing. While some ideas were allegedly tossed around, nothing is anywhere near set in stone. At best, there is just ideas for a treatment or a treatment. There is definitely not a script.
And honestly, I would not mind seeing Nolan having some sort of hand in giving some advise into the handling of other DC characters if it means they can finally get some films developed around the DC characters. And Nolan involved with be light years better than Singer.
If Dick Grayson appears in any way shape or form, that probably means that if there's a Batman 4, Bale or Nolan won't be involved. I'm pretty sure one of them (or both) said he's done if they bring in Robin.
Frankly, I wish they'd either reveal that Harvey didn't really die and have him escape or use a villain that wasn't used in the old Tim Burton/Man whose name I refuse to type because he ruined the whole franchise films. But the only ones that would be decent and aren't mega-obscure are Deadshot (who may not be an option, if they are going to do a Suicide Squad or Secret Six movie) and Professor Hugo Strange. If this series wasn't seemingly trying to be more realistic, I'd say bring on Killer Croc or Man-Bat.....or go a bit obscure and use the Monk or the Wrath.
I'm extremely skeptical about this. The Riddler would be a marvelous villain, but fans've been saying that since Dark Knight came out. The rest seems riddled with conjecture.
Although, honestly, I wish Bale and Nolan weren't dead set against Robin. When written well, both Grayson and Drake are fantastic characters, and great counterparts to the darker, more violent side of Batman. (Todd's awful, but I liked how well he showed what Robin can't be, so there ya go.)
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 12, 2010, 05:32:35 AM
If Dick Grayson appears in any way shape or form, that probably means that if there's a Batman 4, Bale or Nolan won't be involved. I'm pretty sure one of them (or both) said he's done if they bring in Robin.
I think both of them have insinuated it. And I don't think either of them would do it anyways. Bale was only signed on for three films. Nolan will probably want to move on to other projects.
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 12, 2010, 05:32:35 AM
Frankly, I wish they'd either reveal that Harvey didn't really die and have him escape or use a villain that wasn't used in the old Tim Burton/Man whose name I refuse to type because he ruined the whole franchise films. But the only ones that would be decent and aren't mega-obscure are Deadshot (who may not be an option, if they are going to do a Suicide Squad or Secret Six movie) and Professor Hugo Strange. If this series wasn't seemingly trying to be more realistic, I'd say bring on Killer Croc or Man-Bat.....or go a bit obscure and use the Monk or the Wrath.
My favorites to be in the third movie have always been Hugo Strange, Catwoman, and maybe The Mad Hatter.
With Catwoman being Selina Kyle and an antihero... not to mention to a way to undo that Halle Berry fiasco. Perhaps even tie Selina into the larger DC Universe and have her spun off into her movie for real.
Hugo Strange would be ideal to bring in given where Batman was left off at the end of the first movie. The police are hunting Batman and it would make sense that they bring in someone to do a psychological profile of the guy.
The Mad Hatter is a long shot. He wouldn't be a major villain. It'd be maybe something like with Scarecrow in the first or second movie. It'd also reestablish Arkahm as a functioning facility in Gotham.
As for The Riddler and Penguin, the only reason I could see them having minor roles in the third is that they were mentioned in the ARG marketing under their real names. And really, the only reason I'd want to see them is that I was not really satisfied with how they were repped in the first movie. Penguin hasn't been a major villain though in years. He's been a behind the scenes player at best.
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 12, 2010, 05:32:35 AM
Frankly, I wish they'd either reveal that Harvey didn't really die and have him escape or use a villain that wasn't used in the old Tim Burton/Man whose name I refuse to type because he ruined the whole franchise films. But the only ones that would be decent and aren't mega-obscure are Deadshot (who may not be an option, if they are going to do a Suicide Squad or Secret Six movie) and Professor Hugo Strange. If this series wasn't seemingly trying to be more realistic, I'd say bring on Killer Croc or Man-Bat.....or go a bit obscure and use the Monk or the Wrath.
see thats where this "realism" approach has backed them into a corner, riddler and penguin are the only real big time villains left they can use. guys like clayface, man-bat just don't fit into nolans view of the bat verse.
hell even poison ivy is thin ice.
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on February 12, 2010, 02:23:03 PM
Quote from: GhostMachine on February 12, 2010, 05:32:35 AM
Frankly, I wish they'd either reveal that Harvey didn't really die and have him escape or use a villain that wasn't used in the old Tim Burton/Man whose name I refuse to type because he ruined the whole franchise films. But the only ones that would be decent and aren't mega-obscure are Deadshot (who may not be an option, if they are going to do a Suicide Squad or Secret Six movie) and Professor Hugo Strange. If this series wasn't seemingly trying to be more realistic, I'd say bring on Killer Croc or Man-Bat.....or go a bit obscure and use the Monk or the Wrath.
see thats where this "realism" approach has backed them into a corner, riddler and penguin are the only real big time villains left they can use. guys like clayface, man-bat just don't fit into nolans view of the bat verse.
hell even poison ivy is thin ice.
I don't think they'll successfully follow up the greatest movie of all time which was so good in large part to the villains with a guy who leaves clues to solve his crimes or a fat guy who wears a tuxedos. In fact, Batman's only interesting enough villain that hasn't been done and isn't too ridiculous is Mr. Freeze. And even he doesn't really fit well with the way the last one ended. They need to continue to treat this series like a crime drama and have the villains changed to fit in well with it while still maintaining the superhero action movie feel, but secondary. He doesn't need super powered villains, he just needs super-evil villains. And Nolan is 2 for 2 on amazing movies and they seem to be smart enough to let him do what he wants and won't push him to use characters like Riddler and Robin that just don't fit.
Here's an idea I just came up with off the top of my head: Have Batman be revealed to be engaged previously. Then have her be the secret villain and kill a bunch of crime bosses while framing Batman and starting a relationship with him. Then also work the Joker in somehow. That gives him a mystery to solve, a romance interest, builds on Batman being seen as a bad guy, and I'm sure that would make an awesome movie.
I think Deadshot could work. "Batman - Gotham Knight" was set between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight timeline. Deadshot appears in the novel by Louise Simonson. What if Batman 3 was a continuation of that where Deadshot is back and out to destroy Batman? He frames him for an assassination, hunts him down, etc.
True, there is the pesky issue of film rights to muddy the waters, but that would be awesome.
QuoteHere's an idea I just came up with off the top of my head: Have Batman be revealed to be engaged previously. Then have her be the secret villain and kill a bunch of crime bosses while framing Batman and starting a relationship with him. Then also work the Joker in somehow. That gives him a mystery to solve, a romance interest, builds on Batman being seen as a bad guy, and I'm sure that would make an awesome movie.
I do hope you're joking because that exact movie with that exact plot has been done before. Mask of the Phantasm, I mean.
Quote from: catwhowalksbyhimself on February 11, 2010, 10:19:08 PM
They didn't say Batgirl, they said Barbara Gordon. Seeing she apparently wasn't even born in the last movie, and that Gordon's family is featured in both movies, she will probably be an infant or toddler who either get's kidnapped as part of a villain's scheme, or else becomes endangered or harmed in the course of it.
Then who was the little girl in The Dark Knight? What's her name?
This thread amuses me. Really guys, Robin showing up in a Nolan film? Mr. Freeze is a credible villain that would fit perfectly in the next movie? Making a movie as a sequel to a tie-in book?
Whatever you guys are taking, keep it up. Next I'll be hearing that Quilt man is a lock for the next movie or that we'll have a time machine appear out of nowhere carrying a bow-tie wearing time lord.
I think Rash Al Ghul would be good villain for this movie. The occult fits into reality quite well.
So is anyone else at least a little suspicious that these new murmors of a third Batman movie and Nolan mentoring a new Superman movie.... are related?
Quote from: thalaw2 on February 13, 2010, 02:58:54 AM
I think Rash Al Ghul would be good villain for this movie. The occult fits into reality quite well.
He was the villain in Batman Begins!
The Wrath ( The player on the other side) would work very well in the Nolanverse. To the general public he's no more obscure than Ras was really.
Quote from: BWPS on February 12, 2010, 05:09:36 PM
Here's an idea I just came up with off the top of my head: Have Batman be revealed to be engaged previously. Then have her be the secret villain and kill a bunch of crime bosses while framing Batman and starting a relationship with him. Then also work the Joker in somehow. That gives him a mystery to solve, a romance interest, builds on Batman being seen as a bad guy, and I'm sure that would make an awesome movie.
Sounds like "Batman: Mask of the Phantasm"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106364/
Quote from: BWPS on February 12, 2010, 05:09:36 PM
I don't think they'll successfully follow up the greatest movie of all time which was so good in large part to the villains with a guy who leaves clues to solve his crimes or a fat guy who wears a tuxedos. [...]
Ha! Hahahahahaha! Heh....ohhh...haha.....
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 13, 2010, 04:02:49 PM
Quote from: BWPS on February 12, 2010, 05:09:36 PM
I don't think they'll successfully follow up the greatest movie of all time which was so good in large part to the villains with a guy who leaves clues to solve his crimes or a fat guy who wears a tuxedos. [...]
Ha! Hahahahahaha! Heh....ohhh...haha.....
Benton, please don't. We get it, you don't like TDK. But please, don't belittle the opinions of others (like, FYI, ME) because your opinion happens to differ. It's annoying.
I don't say you shouldn't like it, but calling it the "greatest movie of all time" is simply hilarious to me. Yeah, taken apart from its wasted potential, it isn't a bad movie. I can understand how people can have enjoyed it, but I can't help but laugh at that. :P I'm sorry if my unrestrained mirth bothered y'all. :)
Benton, I don't get it. What's your beef with The Dark Knight? I mean, if someone thinks that it's the greatest movie of all time, that is a credible opinion, considering that it is in the top 5 world-wide highest grossing movies of all time, top 3 in the US, nominated for 8 Academy Awards, several others and one of the first comic-book movies to be taken seriously by mainstream audiences.
I say all that and think to myself how much I hated Return of the King(pretty much the entire trilogy really), but I'm just curious. What did the Dark Knight do or not do in your opinion?
I have to agree here to an extent. It's well known that you do not like TDK and several other comic book movies. No one here has a problem with that, even if they don't get your dislike of it. I generally accept that you will always find a reason to dislike 90% of all movies based on but that's another matter. But Benton, posting simply to mock someone else's opinion of the film because they really liked it? That's just wrong.
Shogunn summed the movie's merits up. The Dark Knight transcended being a comic book movie which is something that no other comic book movie to date as been seriously able to do. And I will debate that.
You guys, do not take Benton seriously. His idea of "edgy" science fiction entertainment is:
Spoiler
(http://alpinebriefs.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/care_bears_easter.jpg)
I kid Benton, I kid. You know I :wub: your existence.
"AquaBear, stare!" - Bearthur Curry
I dunno Benton , at least you make me feel not alone in being disappointed in "Dark knight" after "Batman Begins" but we should probably let them have their fun. ( Allowing then WE get to make equal statements about the movies we loved and not get belittled.)
Quote from: Tomato on February 13, 2010, 04:18:37 PM
Benton, please don't. We get it, you don't like TDK. But please, don't belittle the opinions of others (like, FYI, ME) because your opinion happens to differ. It's annoying.
And yet it's okay to belittle my opinion that a tie-in to Gotham Knight using Deadshot would make a good movie, even though I never expressed any faith that they would make such a movie.
Pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on February 13, 2010, 09:44:12 PM
I mean, if someone thinks that it's the greatest movie of all time, that is a credible opinion, considering that it is in the top 5 world-wide highest grossing movies of all time, top 3 in the US, nominated for 8 Academy Awards,
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH
ok i'm gonna go bash my head on a wall for an hour or two to try forgetting i saw that.
money DOES NOT imply quality. transformers1 and 2 probably made as much money if not more than Dark Knight, but if anyone try to say those are even "good" movies because of how much they earned, then they should get shot (a little bit extreme...yeah i guess i do that sometime)
"awards" are publicity stunt. this year, some compagny (i want to say sony but i'm not even sure they produce movie) decided that giving an early copy of any of their film to the oscar was too risky (they were afraid that some guy from the jury would put it on internet) and so they didn't sign any of their production for the competition. if those movie don't get an oscar, are they worthless? also, i like to remember that awards tells us what is supposed to be the best movie of the year. if there's no competition the award is worthless; if there's too many some people don't get celebrated the way they should : Ellen Burstyn should have won "best actress" for Requiem for a Dream, but she lost to Pretty Woman. that was a highly controversial decision, but she still won't get the award "back", that not how it works.
and finaly, if you want to be amazed by a production that earned almost no money and still is better than any of the blockbusters of this year
http://vimeo.com/9078364 (http://vimeo.com/9078364)
Quote from: BlueBard on February 14, 2010, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: Tomato on February 13, 2010, 04:18:37 PM
Benton, please don't. We get it, you don't like TDK. But please, don't belittle the opinions of others (like, FYI, ME) because your opinion happens to differ. It's annoying.
And yet it's okay to belittle my opinion that a tie-in to Gotham Knight using Deadshot would make a good movie, even though I never expressed any faith that they would make such a movie.
Pardon me if I don't have a lot of sympathy.
Much as I enjoy words put in my mouth, I never said it would be a bad movie... Deadshot is a cool villain and in many ways would work better then having a repeat of characters we've seen before. But what you're saying is that they rely on motivation and history from a book very few casual fans will see, let alone read. Likewise there are methods that could be used for bringing in Robin, but I recognise it has zero chance in a Nolan film.
hmm...lots of tension in here. :unsure:
back on topic, what do you guys think of Joker returning with a different actor? It would be really difficult, but...it'd also be difficult if Joker wasn't in it. I guess you could say it worked with Rachel Dawes, but Joker's an entirely different situation.
If there were any other villains that could be just as compelling as Joker and still be realistic, I think Riddler is the best, if only, choice. But that's just me. I think Catwoman would work as an excellent foil, but again, not better than Joker...
Quote from: TheMarvell on February 14, 2010, 04:28:47 PM
hmm...lots of tension in here. :unsure:
back on topic, what do you guys think of Joker returning with a different actor? It would be really difficult, but...it'd also be difficult if Joker wasn't in it. I guess you could say it worked with Rachel Dawes, but Joker's an entirely different situation.
If there were any other villains that could be just as compelling as Joker and still be realistic, I think Riddler is the best, if only, choice. But that's just me. I think Catwoman would work as an excellent foil, but again, not better than Joker...
I think just having Joker locked away forever in Arkham or something like that is probably best.
I'm with you on Riddler. If they were to focus on Batman's detective skills/intellect and make the flick something similar to Se7en. Kind of a crime mystery. Riddler could be some demented serial killer leaving a trail of clues, in the form of riddles, for Bats to follow.
Deadshot would be a cool villain. But more of a complementary role to a main protagonist. Such as a hired gun of an organized crime ring.
I think Roman Sionis (Black Mask) would be a great villain. Although he's relatively unknown.
Quote from: Trelau on February 14, 2010, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on February 13, 2010, 09:44:12 PM
I mean, if someone thinks that it's the greatest movie of all time, that is a credible opinion, considering that it is in the top 5 world-wide highest grossing movies of all time, top 3 in the US, nominated for 8 Academy Awards,
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH
ok i'm gonna go bash my head on a wall for an hour or two to try forgetting i saw that.
money DOES NOT imply quality. transformers1 and 2 probably made as much money if not more than Dark Knight, but if anyone try to say those are even "good" movies because of how much they earned, then they should get shot (a little bit extreme...yeah i guess i do that sometime)
"awards" are publicity stunt. this year, some compagny (i want to say sony but i'm not even sure they produce movie) decided that giving an early copy of any of their film to the oscar was too risky (they were afraid that some guy from the jury would put it on internet) and so they didn't sign any of their production for the competition. if those movie don't get an oscar, are they worthless? also, i like to remember that awards tells us what is supposed to be the best movie of the year. if there's no competition the award is worthless; if there's too many some people don't get celebrated the way they should : Ellen Burstyn should have won "best actress" for Requiem for a Dream, but she lost to Pretty Woman. that was a highly controversial decision, but she still won't get the award "back", that not how it works.
and finaly, if you want to be amazed by a production that earned almost no money and still is better than any of the blockbusters of this year
http://vimeo.com/9078364 (http://vimeo.com/9078364)
Tre, I understand your point, but firstly, Transformers or Transformers: RotF did not make as much as The Dark Knight. Secondly, Transfomers: RotF was #1 in the box office for two weekends when it was released with a 61% drop from the first weekend to the second weekend. Transformers was #1 for a single weekend. The Dark Knight had the longest longevity of the three lasting #1 in the box office for a month and was pretty much in the top three for nearly two months with a smaller drop from consecutive weekends. Compared to others movies that did well in the Box Office like E.T., which was number one for 16 weeks and did not leave the top three until six months later and Return of the Jedi, which was number one for six weeks, both actually enjoyed increases in box office in consecutive weeks. I am not making comparisons to Titanic and Avatar because both movies were released during the winter where a lot of crap is released, but all the movies named above were released among other really popular movies, which is a barometer of not simply it's popularity, but also longevity. If a movie wasn't good, then the drop would be evident and fast, like it was with Transformers and Transformers: RotF.
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2009&wknd=26&p=.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2007&wknd=27&p=.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?view=&yr=2008&wknd=29&p=.htm
And I understand what you're saying about award ceremonies(even though I completely disagree with the view you're giving), and also that it's been known that the Academy sometimes will "make-up" for past awards not given(Denzel Washington for Training Day and Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman(when the Best Actor should have gone to Washington that year and Pacino should have won for Godfather). But I'm I'm talking about wins. If you ask me, Star Wars was clearly the best movie in 1977, but Annie Hall won the Academy Award. Nominations are different. Often times, nominations is the barometer for the several different facets of a film, acting, director, script, fx, sound, etc. The nomination process looks at all parts of a movie not just the movie as a whole.
BUT! Who am I to argue with you. I desparately hated the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy and cried the night Return of the King won all those damn awards. I guess we all are entitled to our opinions.
ON TOPICMarvell, I kinda agree with you about the Joker. I actually think Ledger's performance was well enough to the extent I didn't identify him as the Joker. I identified the Joker and the Joker and if you get another credible actor to give another incredible performance, it's POSSIBLE the Joker could be replaced but I doubt it and doubt it would even happen. But I think a Se7en slant with the Riddler could be probable and believable. One thing they shouldn't do is try to
top the Dark Knight. I feel that Batman Begins and The Dark Knights are separate movies(which has lead to the success of these movies) and could be viewed separately and that's what I think they should do with the next movie. Less like a trilogy, depending on the same storyline, but a separate entry simply using the same characters(like James Bond). If they try to
top The Dark Knight, they might end up doing a Spider-Man 3. THough Deadshot might be a good villain, I don't think he'd be mainstream enough to be credible. Honestly, the same could have been said about Ras and Scarcrow too though, so really, Nolan could go ANY direction as long as he writes a solid singular film and not worry about what the other movies did, in script or box office.
Honestly, I'd like to see more Two-Face. At least stop trying to convince us he's dead. How we're going to get set up with a protagonist who does not kill, but kills his friend at the end of the movie... with absolutely no remorse. Tre and Benton, if you guys have a problem with that then you're COMPLETELY justified.
I should have stated that i actually like the dark knight very much. it is now my second favorite batman movie (just behing the first burton one...i still have nighmares about Nicholson's joker). About awards, i should also have stated that my opinion is biased because...well, in france they've become something of a joke. Le festival de Cannes is no longer the reference it used to be to "us" cinephile. so maybe on a global scale it's not as bad as i made it sound.
But staying on topic (it another discussion altogether) on a possible batman 3:
The death of Two Face is problematic in the character-building sense, as you pointed out. But i really wouldn't like him to come back from the dead too. I have a feeling it would cheapen the character.
A new actor for joker is...complicated. He either tries to redo Ledger performance (continuity) and that would be automatically worse; or he retakes the character and does "his" version wich would be odd...Maybe if they introduce Quinzell, they can say they've worked on his personnality or something...but that would give us another joker-centric movie, and i'm not sure we'd still be interested.
Riddler is a fan favorite, and for good reasons. He's the most creddible "major" villain left. Penguin as a mob boss could be introduce as a secondary villain, but he doesn't have the weight to be the major plot. I don't see either Catwoman nor Poison Ivy fitting in Nolan's view of batman (too realistic).
Killer Croc could be present, but in his original concept (the crocodile wrestler with a skin condition who works for the mob, instead of the human-aligator mutant he is depicted as today).
Black Mask is far too unknown to be used, same goes for Ush.
Bane...now that could be interesting. If depicted correctly, maybe as the heir of Ras, with a mind matching that of the bat.
Speaking of Ras's heir, Thalia could be retconned-in via flash back as having trained with him/witnessed his training and now seeking revenge. That'd be a little far fetched though, but she's the only one i could see as a central villain that is not too obscure (and only because of Begins)
And finally Deadshot..meh. Nothing wrong with him, i actually like the character a lot. For me he's just not a "batman villain", he's a generic dc villain (meaning i don't want him tied up to batman in peoples mind). I don't see him balancing well with Riddler too.
For now i'm more fingers-crossed on superman, i really hope nolan actually does something and "saves" the franchise (please re-cast Dean Cain as superman :rolleyes:)
QuoteHonestly, I'd like to see more Two-Face. At least stop trying to convince us he's dead. How we're going to get set up with a protagonist who does not kill, but kills his friend at the end of the movie... with absolutely no remorse. Tre and Benton, if you guys have a problem with that then you're COMPLETELY justified.
I am pretty sure Harvey is dead but I don't think Batman "killed his friend without remorse" Him not saving Ras Al Gul was more of killing someone than him trying to take a bullet for Gordon's kid. Harvey's death to me seemed more accidental.
Also I didn't see Harvey and Wayne as friends in this movie. I think Bruce saw Harvey as a way out as Batman to be with Rachel and Dent didn't like Wayne much and saw Batman as a means to an end.
And if they bring Harvey back in some way it will be kind of bad because that means Harvey will really be Wayne and Gordon's dirty little secret.
1) There's no need to make the Riddler Demented (though given the psycho Riddler in the Arkham Asylum game, they just might). Go watch "the Thomas Crown Affair" about a bored rich man who turns to crime for the challenge, and you have my base model for a nolan-esque Riddler.
2) If you do feature Arkham in the next movie, I dont see how you get out of at least having a cemo of the Joker. Someone else, in the makeup, from far away, with a digitally constructed laugh as Batman walks by would be ok, I think.
3) Did they introduce Lazarus pits in Batman Begins- what if Ra's got Harvey and put him in one? But would that heal the scarring on his face?
Here's a couple of ideas I had:
Harvey is dead, let him be. Of course it would be nice if they bring him back, but it would be too far fetch to do it.
I would like to see Deadshot, Hugo Strange, Riddler, or maybe even Catwoman, if they can pull off the story right.
It may be a long shot, but how about Killer Croc? They can do it like the Joker. The Joker had scars in the movie, not dumped in acid. The original Croc had a skin condition and was outcast. They can work with a backstory like that.
Thoughts?
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 15, 2010, 02:30:54 PM
It may be a long shot, but how about Killer Croc? They can do it like the Joker. The Joker had scars in the movie, not dumped in acid. The original Croc had a skin condition and was outcast. They can work with a backstory like that.
thant's exactly what i said just 2 posts before. and yes i think he would work great as the main henchman of another villain. he could totally be played like jaw in james bond.
No Brendon they didn't introduce the Lazarus pit in Begins.
Yikes! Some interesting attempts here to use box office to prove movie quality and to show that box office doesn't prove anything (and sometimes by the same people). My two cents: box office doesn't prove anything other than a lot of people wanted to see that movie. Sometimes that's because of hype and advertising, sometimes because of goodwill established by previous entries in a series, and sometimes for other reasons entirely, like strong word of mouth. Spider-man 3 made more money worldwide than 1 and 2, and it's a worse movie than either. The Phantom Menace is the highest grossing movie of the Star Wars series, but does anyone think it's the best of those?
When we come to the Dark Knight, its American box office was inflated by Heath Ledger dying. I think it's a very good, solid movie, and Batman Begins built up a fair amount of goodwill on the part of audiences, but the Dark Knight is the only movie in the top ten grossing worldwide movies that made more in the USA than the rest of the world combined http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/).
Do awards like the Oscars accurately represent the best movies? No, but they at least try to. Movies win these awards for all sorts of reasons, like campaigning efforts on the parts of movie studios, biased academy voters, etc.
People need to divorce personal opinion and enjoyment from the idea of objective quality. I can recognize that a film is well-made and well-acted and still not really enjoy it depending on the subject matter, or never be interested in seeing it at all. In the world of literature, I don't really enjoy the work of Virginia Woolf, but does that make me decide she was a terrible writer or a hack? No, and if it did, most people who know anything about literature would write my opinion off as meaningless. The same is true about film.
People should be able to enjoy a movie without needing to proclaim it the best film evar! And people should be able to see movies they didn't enjoy without needing to claim they suck. Those two extremes seem to be the default settings of the internet.
And finally, I think we can forgive Benton for laughing about and disliking the Dark Knight - the man's favourite superhero is Aquaman; he's clearly suffered enough. ;)
Sheesh, touchy much guys? For heaven's sakes, I made such a flippant post to AVOID discussing once again all of the problems that film has. That was sorta' the point, because I figured people are more than a little tired of me repeating my reasoning. Heck,
I'M tired of repeating it. I found his statement funny because it was such great hyperbole, but come on. :P
Quote from: Shogunn2517 on February 13, 2010, 09:44:12 PM
Benton, I don't get it. What's your beef with The Dark Knight? I mean, if someone thinks that it's the greatest movie of all time, that is a credible opinion, considering that it is in the top 5 world-wide highest grossing movies of all time, top 3 in the US, nominated for 8 Academy Awards, several others and one of the first comic-book movies to be taken seriously by mainstream audiences.
I say all that and think to myself how much I hated Return of the King(pretty much the entire trilogy really), but I'm just curious. What did the Dark Knight do or not do in your opinion?
If you want to know, Shogunn, feel free to check out the freakin' book I wrote about it.
http://freedomreborn.net/archive/index.php?topic=41207.msg653844#msg653844
As for the Riddler being the villain in the next movie, I would absolutely love that! He's one of my favorite villains, but I definitely would not want Nolan to turn him into some psychotic freakjob. The man of superior intellect who becomes obsessed with proving he's Batman's superior....now he is the villain I want to see. I do rather doubt the accuracy of that info, but I suppose we can hope.
Well Benton. What can I say. Like I said, people thought I was a fool because I absolutely hated Lord of the Rings. Still do. So who am I to judge your opinion of The Dark Knight.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 15, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Sheesh, touchy much guys? For heaven's sakes, I made such a flippant post to AVOID discussing once again all of the problems that film has. That was sorta' the point, because I figured people are more than a little tired of me repeating my reasoning. Heck, I'M tired of repeating it. I found his statement funny because it was such great hyperbole, but come on. :P
It wasn't hyperbole, I was saying it's the greatest movie ever made and I meant it. Now if I had said it's better than stuffing my face at Cinnabon all day...
All the problems with it are in your head and if you didn't like it you need to see a brain specialist ;). But I definitely didn't find your laughter offensive at all. Diff'rent strokes for different folks. I don't mean strokes like where you suffer brain damage. Though again, if you don't like The Dark Knight, maybe you should check for that too.
Quote from: BWPS on February 15, 2010, 07:51:46 PM
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 15, 2010, 05:59:57 PM
Sheesh, touchy much guys? For heaven's sakes, I made such a flippant post to AVOID discussing once again all of the problems that film has. That was sorta' the point, because I figured people are more than a little tired of me repeating my reasoning. Heck, I'M tired of repeating it. I found his statement funny because it was such great hyperbole, but come on. :P
It wasn't hyperbole, I was saying it's the greatest movie ever made and I meant it. Now if I had said it's better than stuffing my face at Cinnabon all day...
All the problems with it are in your head and if you didn't like it you need to see a brain specialist ;). But I definitely didn't find your laughter offensive at all. Diff'rent strokes for different folks. I don't mean strokes like where you suffer brain damage. Though again, if you don't like The Dark Knight, maybe you should check for that too.
Haha! That's more like it. S'okay, I can't expect you to see clearly, being so fixated on your stick's pointiness. :P
Can we please get back on topic?
Like what do you guys think about Killer Croc being in the next Batman movie?
Sheeesh you guys and your one track minds..... :P
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 15, 2010, 05:59:57 PMAs for the Riddler being the villain in the next movie, I would absolutely love that! He's one of my favorite villains, but I definitely would not want Nolan to turn him into some psychotic freakjob.
Didn't Schumacher already do that? Look how well *that* turned out!
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 15, 2010, 08:25:31 PM
Can we please get back on topic?
Sheeesh you guys and your one track minds..... :P
You're just mad 'cuz yours keeps getting derailed! ;)
As to who could be included in a Nolan-helmed movie, it's my opinion that the following could all work, if done properly (some may require being used as earlier incarnations, before anything "fantastic" happened to them, or simpifying their origins):
Blockbuster
Catman
Catwoman
the original Clayface
Deadshot
Hugo Strange
Killer Croc
Maxie Zeus
Penguin
Poison Ivy
Riddler
Blockbuster would obviously not be a lead villain. He can easily be explained with "experimental" steroids.
Catman, especially if they focused on earlier appearances, could easily be made to work, and if written properly, could carry a good portion of a movie.
Catwoman, again if done properly, could work easily. Having both of them in the same movie could be made to work, as long as they established each seperately, and then played on his obsessions over the theme (eventually getting rid of him and leaving her for possible future appearances).
The original Clayface was just an actor/serial killer, and could be done simply as a make-up changing technique, with no shape-shifting involved. Not strong enough to carry a movie.
While Deadshot is a great character, and easily doable, I agree that he's not enough to carry an entire movie.
Hugo Strange could easily care the plot of an entire movie, possibly with a lesser villain or two working for him to make up for the lack of action.
As discussed previously, Croc originally was just a skin condition. Enforcer, not main villain.
Maxie Zeus could be another manipulative string-puller like Strange, carrying the plot, but with a different twist.
Penguin should be handled as about he is now, a minor villain/crime boss, with a particular fetish/fascination, but nothing more.
Ivy could be done if they drop all of the "plant control" bit, leaving it as just a skilled horticulturist with rare cross-breeds, and repeated exposures has left her immune/less susceptible to toxins, while exuding a mild touch-based toxin. May or may not be enough for an entire movie.
Riddler is pretty obvious.
I'd narrow the main villain list to Riddler, Hugo, Zeus, Catman, and Catwoman, with the last two capable of handling their own action segments, so no need for secondary/tertiary villains. My top three would be, in order: Catman (because it would be someone almost on an even footing with Bats, and he hasn't been done yet), Riddler, and Catwoman (to hopefully get these two done correctly).
I don't think they're going to go with a relatively unknown villain as the main antagonist. I'd never even heard of 'Catman' until last year. Plus the name itself is just a bad mix if you're trying to do a 'serious' Batman movie. You could get away with 'Catwoman' because she's an established character in the Bat-verse and because it doesn't sound like 'Batman versus Catman'.
I know you could argue that Ra's was relatively unknown, but he fit into the Batman origin and Begins was an origin movie. Plus there was a recognizable Batman rogue in the mix in The Scarecrow. Putting an unknown in the villain slot for a sequel is a risky move that might be a hard sell.
IMO, Catwoman herself won't carry an action movie as THE villain if they stick to the source material. She's not a murderess or a nutcase, nor is she going to present some mortal threat to Gotham City or take over organized crime. Not that she couldn't be in it (and I wouldn't mind seeing it), but I doubt she's going to be the main antagonist.
Here are some ways to put Catwoman in the movie:
1 - She can be the man hating type and start killing off guys from the mob
2 - Can be the S/M type and obsessed with Batman
3 - Be an extreme chick and wants Batman attention
4 - Or they can go with the year one story line.
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 16, 2010, 08:20:43 PM
Here are some ways to put Catwoman in the movie:
1 - She can be the man hating type and start killing off guys from the mob
2 - Can be the S/M type and obsessed with Batman
3 - Be an extreme chick and wants Batman attention
4 - Or they can go with the year one story line.
Can't go wrong with any of those ideas. A Year One portayal would probably be preferred but I think all of those could work well.
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 16, 2010, 08:20:43 PM
Here are some ways to put Catwoman in the movie:
1 - She can be the man hating type and start killing off guys from the mob
2 - Can be the S/M type and obsessed with Batman
3 - Be an extreme chick and wants Batman attention
4 - Or they can go with the year one story line.
Noooo thank you. I hope they stay far, far away from the Year One version. I'd like to see her in, imagine this, the TAS vein. She should be someone who crosses between Bruce's circles, but as Wayne and Batman.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 16, 2010, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: JeyNyce on February 16, 2010, 08:20:43 PM
Here are some ways to put Catwoman in the movie:
1 - She can be the man hating type and start killing off guys from the mob
2 - Can be the S/M type and obsessed with Batman
3 - Be an extreme chick and wants Batman attention
4 - Or they can go with the year one story line.
Noooo thank you. I hope they stay far, far away from the Year One version. I'd like to see her in, imagine this, the TAS vein. She should be someone who crosses between Bruce's circles, but as Wayne and Batman.
Sure, she can cross paths with Bruce & Bats, but she would need some sort of back story. Joker got away with no back story because he's crazy.
I'd like to see either the original story or, much more preferably, a TAS-type one. The original used the identity as a way to feel empowered and escape from an abusive husband...a poignant motivation, but one that leaves the character a bit too justified. The TAS version was a lawyer and something of a woman-about-town who was an animal rights activist. She used the Catwoman identity to aid that concern, but even more than that, she did it to feel alive. She'd make a nice contrast to Bats, who does what he does because he believes its right, putting others before himself. She would be someone who does what she does because she puts herself above others. She's a good person at heart, but wrapped up in herself.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 16, 2010, 10:33:10 PM
I'd like to see either the original story or, much more preferably, a TAS-type one. The original used the identity as a way to feel empowered and escape from an abusive husband...a poignant motivation, but one that leaves the character a bit too justified. The TAS version was a lawyer and something of a woman-about-town who was an animal rights activist. She used the Catwoman identity to aid that concern, but even more than that, she did it to feel alive. She'd make a nice contrast to Bats, who does what he does because he believes its right, putting others before himself. She would be someone who does what she does because she puts herself above others. She's a good person at heart, but wrapped up in herself.
the problem with the TAS version is that it's much different than her comic book origin, Benton. Of course, I doubt you care much for the comic book version of the character.
In the comic, Selina Kyle was an orphan who was brought up on the streets. Depending on which version of that, she was at one point a "woman of the night" or may have been the illegitimate daughter of Carmine Falcone.
Regardless, she is a jewel thief. She is not a lawyer. She is not an animal rights activist funding her cause through stealing. She originally for the money first and for the thrill second. The Catwoman identity was more for the thrill and to get the attention of Batman. The TAS version of her irked me the same way that the Tim Burton version of her irked me. (And the Tim Burton version of The Penguin infuriated me worse.)
I am all for a "fresh interpretation" of the character visually. I'll even go with some tweaking to the character usually. But there are some things that should not be changed about certain characters.
I would love to see Catwoman come off like a mix of the girls from "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" (the four thieves played by Eliza Dushku, Shannon Elizabeth, Kevin Smith's wife (whose name I forget) and Ali Larter) with regards to style and maybe some other factors and Danny Ocean (yes, the Clooney version.) in that she is a brilliant planner and is classy despite her background.
Not exactly Mr. Hammick, that was her origin as reinvented sometime in the 80's or later. As I said, the original story had her as a battered wife living out a power fantasy. After that, she was a jewel thief of somewhat murky origins who was the standard femme fatale of the day, classy, crafty, and out for herself. The TAS version changed her no more than those origins you have cited. The basic idea of the TAS version, at least after that initial episode, was that she was a thrill seeker. The animals were a good cause for her to be involved in, but she was Catwoman for herself first and foremost.
Ohh, actually it's worth noting that her first origin was TECHNICALLY that she got bumped on the head and turned evil, but that was quickly done away with.
Quote from: Mr. Hamrick on February 17, 2010, 12:30:23 AM
I am all for a "fresh interpretation" of the character visually. I'll even go with some tweaking to the character usually. But there are some things that should not be changed about certain characters.
I agree, especially when they've finally gotten it right, outside of the comics. ;)
I fail to see where any of those Catwoman origins would carry a movie as the main antagonist, without reinventing her to the point where there is no point.
The real power of Catwoman as a character is in the tension she creates in Batman.
Selina is mysterious, attractive, intelligent, likeable, not awed by wealth, and witty... a near-perfect match for Bruce Wayne.
Catwoman is clever, sensual, agile, a fighter, a thief, and a worthy opponent for Batman who is able to hold her own against him. He is forced to pursue her because she is a criminal, and this pursuit forces him to consider the attraction he feels toward her.
This tension can exist because she is not a murderess. Not that she can't kill, but that she is not indifferent or addicted to killing. Were she to cross that line, the tension disappears and she becomes simply one more murderer who needs to be put away for the sake of Gotham City and for the sake of the Batman's obsession.
Quote from: BentonGrey on February 17, 2010, 01:04:44 AM
I agree, especially when they've finally gotten it right, outside of the comics. ;)
We will have to agree to disagree there. "Gotten it right outside of comics?" I presume you mean TAS. The character was a comic character before she was an animated character. I would hardly call the TAS or any animated or movie version "more right" over the comic where the character originated. I personally didn't care for the TAS version of her.
The suggestions I used were mid-80s and early-90s, if I recall. The latest two retcons of the character as done. (The mid 80s thing was done both circa Frank Miller years and then retooled in Zero Hour and involved the orphan thing and other activities she did on the street. The maybe an illegitimate daughter of Falcone was created during Dark Victory and has been expanded on. The Zero Hour origin and the stuff from Dark Victory are pretty much cannon now.)
Basically, there have been three version of the character to coincide with the Golden, Silver and Modern Age.
And I agree with you wholeheartedly BlueBard. Personally, I think Catwoman should be played as the secondary villain, a femme fetale type character with who Batman is attracted to on one level but is sworn to take her in because she is a thief.
I've got a list of villains that I would love to see and would fit nicely into Nolan's style. I think I have mentioned them elsewhere. I had an ingenious idea for The Riddler (that includes a few casting notes) but it's something that I don't think would be done. It'd leave room for Hugo Strange and Catwoman to be secondary villains (with Catwoman in the femme fatale role)
Regardless, Catwoman is more an of anti-hero now than a villain anyways. An idea that I think should be put forth in the movie.
I still have a really hard time imagining cat woman fitting in nolan's universe. i'm not talking about backstory or characterisation, just about her looks.
Batman has a costume that is more a military suit in desguise than a costume.
Joker just had make-up, and the bank robber with a clown mask was enough to convince people that this could happen.
But catwoman? No matter what costume i give her i still thinks she looks "off": what would justify it? sure, you can give a her a black body suit to make her a jewel thief; but that as far as believability goes.
Plus, the best scene any catwoman can get is the confrontation with batman on a roof top. This works great in Burton's gothic gotham, but in nolan there's skyscrapper everywhere.
Then again it would be nice to have one woman-character done right in Nolan's version of batman.
I still think Thalia is a better candidate than catwoman for a love interest/secondary villain
Quote from: Trelau on February 17, 2010, 01:37:01 PM
I still have a really hard time imagining cat woman fitting in nolan's universe. i'm not talking about backstory or characterisation, just about her looks.
Batman has a costume that is more a military suit in desguise than a costume.
{snip}
But catwoman? No matter what costume i give her i still thinks she looks "off": what would justify it? sure, you can give a her a black body suit to make her a jewel thief; but that as far as believability goes.
Plus, the best scene any catwoman can get is the confrontation with batman on a roof top. This works great in Burton's gothic gotham, but in nolan there's skyscrapper everywhere.
I think Catwoman's outfit would be part function and part whimsy. Obviously she's not going to be wearing advanced body armor like Batman. She doesn't have Bruce Wayne's resources. But she's going to be outfitted for stealth and she's going to have defenses, her own bag or utility-belt of tricks. The claws would be as much tools as weapons, mainly for scaling walls, cutting glass and such. Other things she uses will have been stolen or purchased with stolen money. Catwoman would be the moniker the press labels her with and she responds by making her outfit more catlike.
As to rooftop confrontations, Batman has to function in and among the skyscrapers just as Catwoman would. No city is made up of all skyscrapers and that would include Gotham City, so there should be plenty of relatively lower rooftops.
I like the idea of catwoman changing her outifit because of the press, that i could accept more than a thief who just wants to wear cat ears.
The roof top confrontation...if there's no gargoyle and no glass window behind them, meh.
edit: thats what i'm talking about
Spoiler
(http://www.mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/gothamnightxl.jpg)
I think Jason Todd should be introduced in the film. If he were to become the Red Hood in a later film he could definitely be the main villain. ^_^
Wowwowow calm down. Nolan didn't even want to make ? third movie, and you're hoping there'll be a fourth?
Does anyone doubt that there'll be a fourth? Provided the third doesn't grossly crap the bed, there'll be a fourth, with Nolan or without. Movie studios aren't in the habit of saying, "no, I'd rather we didn't make vast sums of money today."
Without Nolan means another reboot, since Bale won't risk his career for a new guy. And as far as i'm concern Joel Schumacher never did any batman movies. those were just horrible-horrible dreams. So no, there won't be a batman 4, but there may be an eight movie marketed through the name of batman.
I doubt they'd re-boot with the amount of success($) the first two films have generated. If anything thing they'll try and find someone with a style that fits Nolan's to replace him. And that's if Nolan decides not to do anymore Batman flicks. Large sums of money usually change a person's mind. ;)
Quote from: murs47 on February 17, 2010, 09:15:59 PM
I doubt they'd re-boot with the amount of success($) the first two films have generated. If anything thing they'll try and find someone with a style that fits Nolan's to replace him. And that's if Nolan decides not to do anymore Batman flicks. Large sums of money usually change a person's mind. ;)
They already have. He originally wasn't going to do a third one. ;)
Quote from: Trelau on February 17, 2010, 07:58:07 PM
Without Nolan means another reboot, since Bale won't risk his career for a new guy. And as far as i'm concern Joel Schumacher never did any batman movies. those were just horrible-horrible dreams. So no, there won't be a batman 4, but there may be an eight movie marketed through the name of batman.
No Nolan and even no Bale do not necessarily mean another reboot, though given the current, reboot-happy atmosphere of movie studios, it very well could.