Possible Batman 3??

[steamteck]

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/

[BentonGrey]

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.....

[Tomato]

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.   I'm sorry if my unrestrained mirth bothered y'all.

[Shogunn2517]

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?

[Mr. Hamrick]

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.

[murs47]

You guys, do not take Benton seriously. His idea of "edgy" science fiction entertainment is:

Spoiler

I kid Benton, I kid. You know I your existence.

"AquaBear, stare!" - Bearthur Curry

[steamteck]

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.)

[BlueBard]

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.

[Trelau]

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

[Tomato]

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.

[TheMarvell]

hmm...lots of tension in here. 

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...

[murs47]

hmm...lots of tension in here. 

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.

[Shogunn2517]

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

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 TOPIC

Marvell, 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.

[Trelau]

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  )

[Ares_God_of_War]

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 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.

[bredon7777]

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?

[JeyNyce]

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?

[Trelau]

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.

[Ares_God_of_War]

No Brendon they didn't introduce the Lazarus pit in Begins.

[Talavar]

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/. 

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.   

[BentonGrey]

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.

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.

[Shogunn2517]

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.

[BWPS]

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.

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.

[BentonGrey]

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.

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.

[JeyNyce]

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.....

[Panther_Gunn]

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.

Didn't Schumacher already do that?  Look how well *that* turned out!

Can we please get back on topic?

Sheeesh you guys and your one track minds.....

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).

[BlueBard]

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.

[JeyNyce]

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.

[murs47]

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.