2081 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS


Batman - Christian Bale

Alfred - Michael Caine

Lucius Fox - Morgan Freeman

Joker - Johnny Depp

The Riddler - Kevin Spacey

well....a fan can dream.

Since Ledgers death, I really dont think that the Joker should return at all. At least not in Nolans films.... Ledger is the ultimate Joker, to try and top that would be wrong and disrespectful.

[Agent 76]

THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS


Batman - Christian Bale

Alfred - Michael Caine

Lucius Fox - Morgan Freeman

Joker - Johnny Depp

The Riddler - Kevin Spacey

well....a fan can dream.

Since Ledgers death, I really dont think that the Joker should return at all. At least not in Nolans films.... Ledger is the ultimate Joker, to try and top that would be wrong and disrespectful.

But of course, Heath gives an ALMOST if not entirely perfect performance. I said this only, because I would see this scenario with great joy.

[DamnCoffee]

Ahhh. Gotchya.

[Harmsway]

Hey guys, I caught this interview with Christopher Nolan on darkhorizons.com, enjoy.



http://www.darkhoriz...erviews/dk2.php

There are two very terrific comments that address some of Nolan's choices in THE DARK KNIGHT's ending:

Nolan: This ending, I knew what I wanted to do with the end of the film before we even knew the whole story. Without giving too much away about the ending, I wanted it to feel very complete. It's not the same as having a feeling of finality in the ending. There's a particular emotion to the end of the film and a particular thing we were after in terms of expressing something about Batman and bringing the entire story back to him, so that it becomes once again Batman's film at the very end. Having dealt with a very wide number of characters interacting in all kinds of extraordinary ways. At the end of the day we want to just nail the relevance of that to our hero, our core character.

Question: You said you had the idea for an ending for the while. Do you have a plan of how to exceed on that ending in a third film?

Nolan: No. What I can say is, I don't know what I would do next, what would happen next. But I felt in doing a sequel that it would be a big mistake to try and hold anything back for future films. You have to put everything you can into this movie and try to make it as great as it can be.

[danman007]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

[Mister E]

If people find it limiting theres always the comics, animated shows etc to take up their time.

Well BATMAN is still a ridiculous concept no matter what medium it is so adding any more fantasy to Nolan's films wouldn't be a big deal.

[Harmsway]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

Awesomeness.

If people find it limiting theres always the comics, animated shows etc to take up their time.

Well BATMAN is still a ridiculous concept no matter what medium it is so adding any more fantasy to Nolan's films wouldn't be a big deal.

The argument only goes so far, though. Just because there's fantasy involved doesn't mean that every bit of fantasy is viable, though. Nolan's whole goal was to make Batman feel real, even though it's all fantasy. You throw the more overtly fantastic characters in there, you ruin that.

[Mister E]

The argument only goes so far, though. Just because there's fantasy involved doesn't mean that every bit of fantasy is viable, though. Nolan's whole goal was to make Batman feel real, even though it's all fantasy. You throw the more overtly fantastic characters in there, you ruin that.

Batman is a ridiculous character and so are the villians no matter how "realistic" you try to make them to be. You can't really make Batman or any super hero feel real at all no matter how you slice it. They are parading in costumes and themes are not really complex.

Edited by Mister E, 03 July 2008 - 11:13 PM.

[Harmsway]

You can't really make Batman or any super hero feel real at all no matter how you slice it.

I think Nolan did a pretty good job of it on BEGINS. It was clearly fantasy, but the world felt real, and the characters were made to feel real as possible. In Nolan's own words, what he wanted to do was to echo films that "created entire worlds that you believed in, and they had a very tactile, realistic, concrete sense of place and texture and, though they were all dealing with fantastic, outrageous material, they were all extreme exaggerations with idealistic heroes, but they had a recognizable taste and smell—we believe in the reality of what we see for two hours. We're never let off the hook, we're on that rollercoaster and we're not looking at a cartoon."

It's like the difference between CASINO ROYALE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Both of 'em are ridiculous, absurd fantasies, but you buy into one a little easier. And one would hardly suggest that just because CASINO ROYALE is complete fantasy, it's therefore fine to just go and give Bond an invisible car in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, right?

You throw in folks like Clayface and Mr. Freeze and you up the absurdity to the point where it can't even maintain a facade of reality. What made BEGINS so compelling and refreshing among superhero films was that real-world, gritty tone, rather than the open fantasy of the Spider-Man films.

themes are not really complex.

The reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT beg to differ.

[Mister E]

I think Nolan did a pretty good job of it on BEGINS. It was clearly fantasy, but the world felt real, and the characters were made to feel real as possible. In Nolan's own words, what he wanted to do was to echo films that "created entire worlds that you believed in, and they had a very tactile, realistic, concrete sense of place and texture and, though they were all dealing with fantastic, outrageous material, they were all extreme exaggerations with idealistic heroes, but they had a recognizable taste and smell—we believe in the reality of what we see for two hours. We're never let off the hook, we're on that rollercoaster and we're not looking at a cartoon."

Look, the guy is in a constume with very ridiculous villians he persues. Nolan can try an inject as much realism as he possibly can but it's still a ludacris concept. I think he also made a mistake in watering things down (which happens when you try to make something ridiculous realistic) like the Scarecrow/Johnthan Crane. He actually didn't even want a costume for him. Super Hero comics are not complex at all, they are one-dimensonal entertainment. You can have the human emotion in there too but dosen't make it any less silly.

It's like the difference between CASINO ROYALE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Both of 'em are ridiculous, absurd fantasies, but you buy into one a little easier. And one would hardly suggest that just because CASINO ROYALE is fantasy, it's therefore fine to just go and give Craig's Bond an invisible car in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, right?

I think James Bond is ridiculous in the sense, and I am talking about the books mind you, that it takes things that are plausiable but are just silly. It's not like super hero comics which are far more out there.

The reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT beg to differ.

I'll watch the film but that isn't possible for comic book movies.

[Harmsway]

I think he also made a mistake in watering things down (which happens when you try to make something ridiculous realistic) like the Scarecrow/Johnthan Crane. He actually didn't even want a costume for him.

That's a misconception. Nolan always wanted a costume for Crane, he just wanted a reason for Crane to have the costume, and therefore asked screenwriter David Goyer, "Why does he need the mask?" Hence the explanation behind the mask within the story (and the character's richer for it).

And as a longtime Batman fan, I thought Scarecrow was done 100% right. Nothing about him was really "watered-down," since the essence of the character was entirely intact. And I'd even argue his minimalistic costume is far more effective than his garb in the comics.

It's like the difference between CASINO ROYALE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. Both of 'em are ridiculous, absurd fantasies, but you buy into one a little easier. And one would hardly suggest that just because CASINO ROYALE is fantasy, it's therefore fine to just go and give Craig's Bond an invisible car in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, right?

I think James Bond is ridiculous in the sense, and I am talking about the books mind you, that it takes things that are plausiable but are just silly.

That's just side-stepping the comparison, though. After all, we're dealing specifically with the realm of cinema.

The reviews of THE DARK KNIGHT beg to differ.

I'll watch the film but that isn't possible for comic book movies.

Anything can be invested with thematic complexity given the right creator, regardless of genre. The widely acclaimed WATCHMEN, a pretty straight-up superhero comic, is among the greatest works of art of the twentieth century. You want to tell me superheroes can't deal with rich, powerful thematic content?

THE DARK KNIGHT won't be "high art" (whatever that means). But I don't see why it can't deal with some rich thematic content in the process of providing entertainment. With ease, it could be as thematically rich as films like David Fincher's SEVEN - a film I believe you enjoy.

[Mr. Blofeld]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

Wow. That's intense.

[DaveBond21]

On Channel 9's breakfast show this morning, here in Australia, they showed a clip from the first scene of the Joker and another masked person. It was pretty intense, and was shown at 7.20am when kids as young as 3 or 4 are watching!!

I bet it scared the out of them!!!

[sharpshooter]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

Excellent clip. Ledger goes from being somewhat placid to fierce in the blink of an eye. Love it.

[Mister E]

And as a longtime Batman fan, I thought Scarecrow was done 100% right. Nothing about him was really "watered-down," since the essence of the character was entirely intact. And I'd even argue his minimalistic costume is far more effective than his garb in the comics.

I think it was good preformance overall but I don't think it was quite the Scarecrow/Crane it should have been. The impact of the character was diminished when you try to fit him in with reality.

That's just side-stepping the comparison, though. After all, we're dealing specifically with the realm of cinema.

Then the same goes for the cinematic James Bond. Well, at least when it was done right.

Anything can be invested with thematic complexity given the right creator, regardless of genre. The widely acclaimed WATCHMEN, a pretty straight-up superhero comic, is among the greatest works of art of the twentieth century. You want to tell me superheroes can't deal with rich, powerful thematic content?

No they can't because they are too ridiculous and simplistic to do so in a convincing matter. You aren't going convicne me otherwise. Hell, I think the best funny animal comics like Uncle Scrooge are actually more complex when it came to human emotion and character. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF SCROOGE MCDUCK, for example, is more complex then super hero comic book. It was journery of a man, or should I say mad duck, who got his fortune through extreme deterimination but he lost his way and for a while ultimatley isolated himself from the world. At one point, McDuck becomes about as evil as the enemines he fought all his life. Though it has plenty of fantasy elements, like a zombie for example, it goes alot deeper into complex human emotion then a super hero comic book could. I can go on but that's all I'll say on that.

[Qwerty]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

Great stuff.

[Harmsway]

No they can't because they are too ridiculous and simplistic to do so in a convincing matter.

You clearly haven't read WATCHMEN (which TIME magazine ranked among the greatest English language novels from 1923 to the present). That demonstrates to me that you don't have a substantial enough knowledge of the genre to adequately judge what it is and isn't capable of.

Hell, I think the best funny animal comics like Uncle Scrooge are actually more complex when it came to human emotion and character.

[DaveBond21]

Well, honestly, I hope it doesn't become BATMAN: THE DARK KNIGHT. I just like THE DARK KNIGHT, and people will get the idea when advertising starts anyhow. The site BATMAN-ON-FILM indicated that the title would remain just THE DARK KNIGHT and nothing more. So I suspect it will have something like "The Highly Anticipated Sequel to BATMAN BEGINS" attached to it in trailers and maybe even posters.

I personally want Bob Hoskins as the Penguin.

A cockney Bob Hoskins or doing an American accent?

[Harmsway]

NEW Joker Clip:

http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=BqJeHW53Lp0

Excellent clip. Ledger goes from being somewhat placid to fierce in the blink of an eye. Love it.

The best bit is what comes immediately after the clip cuts away.

[Mister E]

You clearly haven't read WATCHMEN (which TIME magazine ranked among the greatest English language novels from 1923 to the present). That demonstrates to me that you don't have a substantial enough knowledge of the genre to adequately judge what it is and isn't capable of.

I don't care what TIME magazine said. I am not going down the list of comic books of read. I have a butt load of them and I stand by my point.

Fine, don't believe me. I already explained why. Also one last thing, those stories are far less predictable then super hero comics.

Edited by Mister E, 04 July 2008 - 03:02 AM.

[Harmsway]

I personally want Bob Hoskins as the Penguin.

A cockney Bob Hoskins or doing an American accent?

Cockney Bob Hoskins, of course.

I am not going down the list of comic books of read. I have a butt load of them and I stand by my point.

If you haven't read WATCHMEN, you don't know superhero comics. Period.

[Mister E]

If you haven't read WATCHMEN, you don't know superhero comics. Period.

Just because I haven't read one comic book ? C'mon, don't be ridiculous.

[danman007]

The Footage that was screen at Wizard World last year from the new DVD Giftset of Batman Begins:

[Harmsway]

If you haven't read WATCHMEN, you don't know superhero comics. Period.

Just because I haven't read one comic book ?

Yes. You can't judge the genre without having read the most significant work of that genre. That's just common sense.

Right now you're coming across like someone pretending to know film and being like, "Wait, CITIZEN KANE is a big deal?" But WATCHMEN is even more significant than CITIZEN KANE is to its respective genre. It's really that big of a deal, and anyone claiming to have a significant knowledge of the graphic novel and its capabilities, both superhero and non-superhero related, needs to have read it.

The Footage that was screen at Wizard World last year from the new DVD Giftset of Batman Begins:

Nice. Lots of new footage in there.

[Mister E]

Yes. You can't judge the genre without having read the most significant work of that genre. That's just common sense.

Yeah, according to you is. Also since you brought up CITIZEN KANE, I saw it and I don't think it was the greatest movie ever made. I guess don't know anything about movies now.

[Harmsway]

Yes. You can't judge the genre without having read the most significant work of that genre. That's just common sense.

Yeah, according to you is.

It's a pretty widely-held opinion. Which, given your ignorance of that, as well, just continues to confirm your relative ignorance of the graphic novel.

Also since you brought up CITIZEN KANE, I saw it and I don't think it was the greatest movie ever made. I guess don't know anything about movies now.

I don't think it's the greatest film ever made, either. But if you're going to talk to someone about film as a genre with some level of understanding, you better have seen it and understood what it accomplished. I was using it more as comparison... the way CITIZEN KANE has become the legendary "film of all films," WATCHMEN is the legendary "graphic novel of all graphic novels."

I don't think WATCHMEN is actually the greatest graphic novel ever written. I'd personally give FROM HELL that honor. But I do think if you're going to start to discuss the medium on the whole as if you're really knowledgeable, WATCHMEN is one of those must-reads. And it's even more significant as a work of superhero fiction than it is as a graphic novel, which is saying a lot.

[Mister E]

It's a pretty widely-held opinion. Which, given your ignorance of that, as well, just continues to confirm your relative ignorance of the graphic novel.

Oh Just keep going, I'll say something else and I'll be ignorant of it, right ? Just because it dosen't fit what you think is grand. I hope you realize how ridiculous and how ignorant YOU are being right now. You shoot down my knowledge of not only super hero comics but the graphic novel in general just because I haven't read one. I have read numerous graphic novels by great artists such as Don Rosa and Doug Tennapel but according to your narrow minded standards, I know nothing because I haven't read the WATCHMEN.

Edited by Mister E, 04 July 2008 - 03:56 AM.

[Harmsway]

Just because it dosen't fit what you think is grand.

That has nothing to do with it. I'm not saying you'd necessarily like WATCHMEN, but you have to have read it if your opinion is to be accepted as well-informed.

There's a certain level of knowledge you have to have about a genre before you can even start to evaluate it. You want to talk about the capabilities of film as a medium, you have to have seen a whole lot of film, especially the films that have been deemed significant.

The same applies to graphic novels. You want to start talking about what's up in that genre, you should have a basic knowledge of what works have been considered significant and have examined them for yourself. Rosa and TenNapel means you're not really a newcomer to the genre. And that's fine. And while they've gotten their share of praise, though, I've never seen their works ranked up as some of the most significant and influential in the genre.

But what we're specifically talking about the superhero genre. And yes, I don't believe you can adequately address that segment of the graphic novel medium without having read WATCHMEN. WATCHMEN is just too significant.

[Mister E]

I know you'd say the same about animation, Mr. E.

Have I ever said "You haven't seen Coal Black and the Seben Dwarfs ? You don't know jack about animation !" No, I have not. I say you don't know anything about animation when you defend FAMILY GUY or SOUTH PARK by saying it should look vomit inducing on purpose.

[Harmsway]

Have I ever said "You haven't seen Coal Black and the Seben Dwarfs ? You don't know jack about animation !" No, I have not.

Not in those words.

I say you don't know anything about animation when you defend FAMILY GUY or SOUTH PARK by saying it should look vomit inducing on purpose.

Well, for the record, I've never defended the animation of FAMILY GUY. But yes, I don't know a whole lot about animation. So any judgments I make there can be entirely ignorant. Including my defense of SOUTH PARK's animation (which, however, I never did claim was actually good, just that it enhanced the humor of the show in some fashion). But I admit my lack of knowledge, and so I would never make any absolute judgments about that area.

Your comment that superheroes can never deal with thematic material in any significant way reeks of ignorance. Especially if you haven't read the works that most claim actually accomplish that, and instead choose to put your foot down and say "No matter what you say, it can't be done! I just know it!"

And to come at this from another angle, why can't superheroes do it? Because they're big and silly? I don't get that. All fantasy is big and silly, but that doesn't keep it from being a consistently powerful genre. After all, superheroes enter the territory of modern day myth, and myth is a powerful thing. Why, then, are superheroes excluded from being able to touch on anything of significance?