1269 replies to this topic

[Red Barchetta]

I've been warming up to this for a title...

The Dark Knight: Wanted


As for a lesser villian, use The Mad Hatter, or even The Crimson Knight.

[[dark]]

Michael Caine believes the Riddler will be the villain in the next Batman film. Doubt he's in the know more than any of us, but Batnews is a bit skimpy lately.

[Tarl_Cabot]

http://www.latinorev...spacebucks-7142

Looks like Christopher Nolan is working on a huge project...will they get Batman 3 off the ground for 2011?

[DamnCoffee]

Sounds very promising.

I HOPE it will be Batman 3.

If all goes to plan, we could have Bond, Bat and Indy for the third time in 2011.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I want Bond back in 2010 and I'd want Indy/Lucas to retire.

[Joe Bond]

According to this article on slashfilm, Nolan has still yet to commit to a third batman and a summer 2012 release may be the earliest it may come out.

[Harmsway]

Of course Nolan has yet to commit. He's working a huge project right now and the last thing he wants to get himself on a timetable for is another huge project, particularly when he doesn't necessarily have a firm concept for the next Batman film in place.

There's also an issue of pay. Nolan's a smart guy. The longer he holds out, the more likely WB is to throw more money at him. He could get a lot out of a deal for BATMAN 3 if he plays his cards right.

[sharpshooter]

Of course Nolan has yet to commit. He's working a huge project right now and the last thing he wants to get himself on a timetable for is another huge project, particularly when he doesn't necessarily have a firm concept for the next Batman film in place.

There's also an issue of pay. Nolan's a smart guy. The longer he holds out, the more likely WB is to throw more money at him. He could get a lot out of a deal for BATMAN 3 if he plays his cards right.

Precisely.

And if he doesn't commit, I can imagine how he feels. How on Earth do you follow up to the second highest grossing film of all time? It's a daunting prospect.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

If he has another one left in him, I'd be very happy, highly enjoyed both his films. If he hasn't, go get another talented director. Good Batman movies were made before Chris Nolan came onboard (well, two of them, anyway). By Spider-Man 3, you could almost feel that Sam Raimi was burnt out, and I don't want that to happen with this great franchise.

The Dark Knight was a great, great film, but unlike many others, I don't feel it's the ultimate Batman movie. A sequel could be even better if they tried hard enough.

[DamnCoffee]

By Spider-Man 3, you could almost feel that Sam Raimi was burnt out...

If you think he was 'burnt out' in Spidey 3, Watch Drag Me To Hell. That's even worse.

I liked Spider-Man 3. Not as good as the first two, but still, very fun indeed.

[Roebuck]

If he has another one left in him, I'd be very happy, highly enjoyed both his films. If he hasn't, go get another talented director. Good Batman movies were made before Chris Nolan came onboard (well, two of them, anyway). By Spider-Man 3, you could almost feel that Sam Raimi was burnt out, and I don't want that to happen with this great franchise.

The Dark Knight was a great, great film, but unlike many others, I don't feel it's the ultimate Batman movie. A sequel could be even better if they tried hard enough.

I wouldn’t mind Darren Aronofsky getting a crack at the series. Before Nolan, Warner Brothers were considering a radical ‘elsewords’ take on Batman, with Aronofsky scripting and directing. Bale was supposedly cast on his suggestion.


For me one of the chief strengths of Dark Knight is the greater freedoms it opens up for future directors/writers. While Batman Begins stuck to a clearly recognizable superhero story arc, Dark Knight drops the familiar characters into the middle of a 70’s crime thriller and makes it work, while remaining faithful to the comics. If they can pull that off, why not do a gothic horror Batman, or any of other genres the book has dipped into down the years.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

By Spider-Man 3, you could almost feel that Sam Raimi was burnt out...

If you think he was 'burnt out' in Spidey 3, Watch Drag Me To Hell. That's even worse.

I liked Spider-Man 3. Not as good as the first two, but still, very fun indeed.

I thought DMTH was going to be great, the reviews I read have been very positive. Damn, I hope I'll disagree with you, mate.

There's a really good movie inside Spidey 3 somewhere, it's just well hidden by lots of uninspired back and forth between Peter and MJ that was already done better in the first two films, boooring speeches by aunt May, and dumb scenes of Peter being a jerk in more ways than the fimmakers might have intended. If they ever do a Director's Cut it should be half an hour shorter than the theatrical version.

Still, ever the optimist, I look forward to part 4, and hope Raimi, normally a great director, can find his mojo again.

[Safari Suit]

I liked Spider-Man 3 a lot more than Spider-Man 2, but that's not saying much as I hated Spider-Man 2 (and I've seen it twice so I am quite sure of this opinion) and am baffled to this day why so many people consider it a great movie.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Loved Spidey 2 personally. Thought it was a lovely movie, with a lead character I really rooted for, which is quite rare in action cinema these days. One of the issues I had with the third film was that I lost all sympathy for Peter Parker, a character I've enjoyed reading about and watching on screen since childhood.

[Safari Suit]

I suppose I should, in all fairness, explain why Spider-Man 2 annoyed me so much. It just felt like a soap opera to me, the Mary Jane stuff felt excessively protracted and saccharin, as did some of the stuff with Aunt May. I thought the comedy stuff at the start was massively overdone, especially the bit with the brooms in the closet which seemed to go on forever. There was maybe one decent action scene, the rest felt excessively cartoonish and unengaging to me. Also, why exactly did he take his mask off when he was holding back the train? It just seemed to me to be a massive contrivance so his identity could be exposed to a group of characters.

[DamnCoffee]

Something that I hated in the Spidey 2 directors cut, was the fact that there was about 5mins of gags in the elevator scene, where it was limited (and better) in the theatrical cut.

[bond 16.05.72]

I liked Spider-Man 3 a lot more than Spider-Man 2, but that's not saying much as I hated Spider-Man 2 (and I've seen it twice so I am quite sure of this opinion) and am baffled to this day why so many people consider it a great movie.

I'm with you there, I thought the first one was passable entertainment but when everyone started bigging up No. 2 I was expecting something amazing and when the Wife and I got round to watching it we were so unimpressed, most people have said No. 3 is a lot worse, I'm not bothering with this franchise any more.

[Safari Suit]

The wierd thing for me is, even though I know it's well liked (or at least was at the time), most people I've talked to about it over the age of 12 didn't like it at all. My friend who went to the theatre with my hated it as much as I did (and while you can never be sure about these things I didn't think it had gone down particularly well with the audience I saw it with and several jokes were met with complete silence), my mother hated it, my uncle and auntie hated it, another friend of mine said he had to turn it off early etc. I had managed to avoid the hype when I went to see it and I remember getting home that day and being stunned to see the praise it was getting on IMDB from users and also professional reviewers (especially the full marks it recieved from Roger Ebert).

[Harmsway]

SPIDER-MAN 2 did receive baffling amounts of undue praise.

But I don't, by any stretch, think the vomit-inducing SPIDER-MAN 3 was any improvement.

[Professor Dent]

I suppose I should, in all fairness, explain why Spider-Man 2 annoyed me so much. It just felt like a soap opera to me, the Mary Jane stuff felt excessively protracted and saccharin, as did some of the stuff with Aunt May. I thought the comedy stuff at the start was massively overdone, especially the bit with the brooms in the closet which seemed to go on forever. There was maybe one decent action scene, the rest felt excessively cartoonish and unengaging to me.

Spider-Man 2 was my favorite of the three movies. I do agree that the The Mary Jane sequences were protracted & saccharin. I just don't think she is a good fit for the role. She was OK in the first movie & it went downhill sharply from there. I was hoping that for Spider-Man 4 that they would just have a fresh start like they did with Rachel Dawes in TDK, i.e. new actress, but doesn't look like that will happen.

Also, why exactly did he take his mask off when he was holding back the train? It just seemed to me to be a massive contrivance so his identity could be exposed to a group of characters.

As soon as I saw this scene, I immediately thought the mask was specifically removed so Maguire could get his face on the screen during a major action sequence.

[tdalton]

Found an interesting article on IGN.com where they discuss the a few directors as their suggestions to take over the franchise from Nolan, if in fact he were to not make BATMAN 3.

Players Wanted: Batman 3's Possible Directors

I think that their suggestions of Aronofsky and Cuaron would be good (I'd greatly prefer either of them over Nolan), but the other suggestions, not so much.

[Harmsway]

I'm not crazy about the suggestion of Aronofsky, though he would be an interesting choice whose approach wouldn't be too easy to figure out in advance. Alfonso Cuaron wouldn't be at all bad and could probably continue Nolan's approach reasonably well, even if I'm not crazy about the man's narrative sensibilities.

Their suggestions of David Yates, Zack Snyder, and George Miller all do little for me. Yates has no real appeal, Snyder's operatic touch is all wrong for continuing Nolan's vision (he'd have to do an entirely unrelated Batman project, if he was to tackle the character at all), and George Miller is a director I've never been particularly big on, and I'm especially less kind to the idea of him tackling Batman after hearing what he wanted to do with JUSTICE LEAGUE.

But really, Nolan has to continue this franchise. It belongs to him more than any other individual, and it just won't feel right if he's not the one to bring it to a close with a third film. Of course Batman will continue on beyond Nolan, but for BATMAN 3, he's the only proper choice.

[tdalton]

I'm not crazy about any of the choices really, although Aronofsky and Cuaron would be, IMO, vast improvements over Nolan. Snyder and the others, however, would be terrible choices, however.

As for BATMAN 3, I'd prefer it if Nolan weren't to return, as I've not been very keen on THE DARK KNIGHT. If he could develop a film with a compelling storyline, then fine, but I'm doubtful after the quite dull and pretentious THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Harmsway]

As for BATMAN 3, I'd prefer it if Nolan weren't to return, as I've not been very keen on THE DARK KNIGHT. If he could develop a film with a compelling storyline, then fine, but I'm doubtful after the quite dull and pretentious THE DARK KNIGHT.

I know you didn't care for THE DARK KNIGHT, but still, this is Christopher Nolan's franchise.

Replacing him right now would be like somebody other than Thomas Harris writing HANNIBAL after the smash-hit success of Harris' novel THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. It just wouldn't feel right, even if another writer could have done it better (and given how many people disliked HANNIBAL, I suspect there were many who ultimately thought that could have been the case). Or it would be like somebody other than George Lucas handling the STAR WARS prequels (they're films I positively loathe, and I'm sure many other creators could have done a far finer job, but STAR WARS wouldn't be proper STAR WARS without his involvement).

Even if BATMAN 3 was horrible under Nolan, and another director--like Cuaron--could have done a finer job, I'd rather Nolan be the one to finish it. This particular set of films is his to finish. No other third film will be "authoritative" unless it's Nolan's.

[tdalton]

I know you didn't care for THE DARK KNIGHT, but still, this is Christopher Nolan's franchise.

I would agree with this if I felt that there was a clear, strong narrative present in the series that would clearly need its creator to see through, but I don't see this as being the case. I thought that BATMAN BEGINS did a nice job of setting up THE DARK KNIGHT, which should have been the film that really told a great story about Batman, the Joker, and Harvey Dent, but it failed on all three counts, and really had no story to speak of that would lead us into a third film. THE DARK KNIGHT was just a bunch of chaos that was put up on screen, with little storyline to support it, and that's where I think that it would be better to have Cuaron, Aronofsky (or anyone else, really) come in and finally tell a story featuring these characters.

I would be willing, however, to give another Nolan directed Batman film a chance if a new team of writers were brought on for the project. I'm just assuming that we'll be seeing the same Chris & Jonathan Nolan writing team for BATMAN 3, but if a new team of writers were brought in, I would be willing to check the film out to see if they could actually deliver a story that had more to it than the paper-thin story that was featured in THE DARK KNIGHT.

[Harmsway]

I would agree with this if I felt that there was a clear, strong narrative present in the series that would clearly need its creator to see through, but I don't see this as being the case.

I don't think it truly matters, though, whether or not that's the case. I'm just talking ownership here. Nolan owns the franchise, whether it's been successful or woefully mediocre, and he's the only one who can authoritatively end it, whether he does it well or in a half-assed fashion.

I return to the Lucas/STAR WARS comparison. I actually don't care for STAR WARS (even the originals) much at all. But Lucas is the only guy who should have been responsible for the films. It's his. He owns it. And yes, I think Nolan owns this Batman franchise in a similar way to Lucas owning STAR WARS. Sure, Nolan doesn't own the character of Batman in general, but he sure owns this Batman.

And seeing as how THE DARK KNIGHT ends on a kind of cliffhanger, I disagree that there's no lead-in for a third installment. Sure, the narrative journey itself is complete, but there's a definite need for a third conclusion to wrap up what the first two films started and redeem Batman's crusade. So it's not like anybody can come in as if there's a blank slate. There's a necessary thematic journey that BATMAN III needs to express.

[tdalton]

I would agree with this if I felt that there was a clear, strong narrative present in the series that would clearly need its creator to see through, but I don't see this as being the case.

I don't think it truly matters, though, whether or not that's the case. I'm just talking ownership here. Nolan owns the franchise, whether it's been successful or woefully mediocre, and he's the only one who can authoritatively end it, whether he does it well or in a half-assed fashion.

I return to the Lucas/STAR WARS comparison. I actually don't care for STAR WARS (even the originals) much at all. But Lucas is the only guy who should have been responsible for the films. It's his. He owns it. And yes, I think Nolan owns this Batman franchise in a similar way to Lucas owning STAR WARS. Sure, Nolan doesn't own the character of Batman in general, but he sure owns this Batman.

And seeing as how THE DARK KNIGHT ends on a kind of cliffhanger, I disagree that there's no lead-in for a third installment. Sure, the narrative journey itself is complete, but there's a definite need for a third conclusion to wrap up what the first two films started and redeem Batman's crusade. So it's not like anybody can come in as if there's a blank slate. There's a necessary thematic journey that BATMAN III needs to express.

Fair point. I do hope, however, that if Nolan does return for BATMAN 3, that he does make BATMAN 3 the last film in this particular series of Batman films and the studio turns to another director to take a shot at the realistic take on Batman. I don't want to see the films return to the campy style that Schumacher brought, and I would love to see it continue to operate in the "real world", although with better stories and better uses of the great villains that the Batman franchise has to offer.

[Loomis]

There's a necessary thematic journey that BATMAN III needs to express.

That thematic journey being what?

I know that it's virtually certain that BATMAN BEGINS III will be made (the franchise is far, far too lucrative for it not to be made), and that Nolan will return (no doubt for the highest paycheque ever given to a director), but I don't see that the story actually needs to continue. The ending of THE DARK KNIGHT wraps things up perfectly. I'm not sure what more actually needs to be said by the saga.

In terms of an origin story for Batman, the guy's already had his arc, as far as I can see.

[Captain Tightpants]

But you can't deny Nolan isn't setting things up for another story. Batman on the run, Dent being described as killing five people when only three are shown on-screen, people like Coleman Reese prying at the mythos that is the Dark Knight. Even if the Joker didn't win, he's done what very few movie villains ever do and disrupted the status quo in such a way that it is going to have far-reaching consequences in the future.

[Loomis]

But you can't deny Nolan isn't setting things up for another story.

Sure, but I don't see why it's a story that has to be told. Batman's origin arc is surely complete. BATMAN BEGINS ended with Bruce Wayne established as Batman. THE DARK KNIGHT ended with Batman's outlaw status firmly established (while also showing the rise of "the freaks" like The Joker). What more do we need? What remains to be said about the character or his world? Especially given that Nolan does not intend to bring Robin into the series.