1269 replies to this topic

[sharpshooter]

My personal title pick is HUNT THE DARK KNIGHT (taken from one of the chapter titles of Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).

I like that one very much. Very dramatic and perfect for the direction the third film has taken.

[Mister E]

I remember Riddler was video game programmer in BTAS. I still want to use that idea but he's alot less clean cut. A sort of a pschopathic video game nerd and more vicious. Anyone agree ?

[Harmsway]

I remember Riddler was video game programmer in BTAS. I still want to use that idea but he's alot less clean cut. A sort of a pschopathic video game nerd and more vicious. Anyone agree ?

It's a valid interpretation, but I tend to find cinematic stuff centering around computers really boring.

I'd really go more with the Zodiac killer angle than anything else, partially because I desperately want BB3 to be a murder mystery/serial killer film. It's an essential element of Batman's character, and we've never really had it.

[Mister E]

It's a valid interpretation, but I tend to find cinematic stuff centering around computers really boring.

Well that could be his job for the sake of trying to challenge convential minds and statisfy his own ego. He can definetly do something worse when trying to tangle with Batman.

I'd really go more with the Zodiac killer angle than anything else, partially because I desperately want BB3 to be a murder mystery/serial killer film. It's an essential element of Batman's character, and we've never really had it.

That's a good idea.

[Loomis]

My hopes for BB3 (although, frankly, perhaps it would be a smart idea to call it a day with THE DARK KNIGHT):

Title: THE CAPED CRUSADER.

I'm interested that you don't think this title is a bit cartoony for Nolan's Batman.

Actually, I do think it's a cartoony - and indeed campy - title. But it's also iconic and instantly identifiable with Batman (just as 007 immediately makes people think "James Bond").

What's more, as a title (that also serves as a description of our hero), it's the "light", optimistic flipside to THE DARK KNIGHT, and hints at a triumphant resurrection for Wayne/Batman after the awful events of TDK. I presume that the arc of the Nolan films will deal with Batman beginning and finding his feet (BATMAN BEGINS) before encountering setbacks (TDK and much of BATMAN BEGINS 3) and finally becoming The Batman We All Know And Love™.

I'm sure that BB3 will be a "dark" film in many ways, but is it possible that it won't be quite as unremittingly bleak as TDK, and that it will hint at some kind of redemption for our hero? Light at the end of the tunnel, sorta thing? Now, I'm certainly not calling for something lightweight and goofy and Schumacheresque, or a return to the Adam West era, or anything like that, but at the same time would it be the end of the world if BB3 moved things in a slightly more optimistic direction?

My personal title pick is HUNT THE DARK KNIGHT (taken from one of the chapter titles of Miller's THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS).

The last thing the third film needs is THE DARK KNIGHT in its title in any way, shape or form - let's keep it the unique property of the second outing. So, please, no THE DARK KNIGHT returns or HUNT THE DARK KNIGHT, or whatever.

I guess the third flick could be called simply BATMAN or BATMAN: SOMETHING OR OTHER. It wouldn't be original, but I'd prefer it to re-using THE DARK KNIGHT.

The return of Falcone, possibly as the main villain, and ideally to be played by Tom Wilkinson again.

You mean you'd like to see Falcone as a crazed lunatic?

Who says the villain has to be a crazed lunatic? Besides, isn't Falcone one? To all intents and purposes, that is? As Crane says in BB, the work he offers must have its attractions for the insane. Not that that means Falcone's insane, but it's nonetheless a possibility that he's, well, nuts to some degree or another, no?

What I love about the Nolan Batman films are their gritty and realistic aspects, so I want a very down-to-earth baddie for the next one, especially as trying to top the Joker would be a hopeless task, and I don't see the need for Two-Face to return either. Falcone would be perfect for this kind of down-to-earth villain. Watching BB last night, I found myself enjoying Wilkinson's performance and wanting to see more of the character. But there's no reason the role couldn't be recast (a la Katie to Maggie) - maybe Stallone could do it. Or Gandolfini or someone else from THE SOPRANOS.

Now, I'm sure that the studio feels that Joe Public would want a more flamboyant, Jokeresque bad guy for the next film, so I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but it's nonetheless what I want.

It occurs to me that two of the most powerful forces in Gotham are two huge for-profit organisations, namely Wayne Enterprises and the Mob. It might be interesting to explore them more, and the relationships between them. If BB had a heavy BLADE RUNNER flavour, and TDK echoed HEAT, I'd love BB3 to have a GOODFELLAS feel, or maybe GOODFELLAS meeting THE INSIDER with classic Batman action sprinkled over the top. Imagine a character like Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS as part of the Nolanverse. Imagine a high-ranking Wayne Enterprises exec going into business with Falcone. Imagine Wayne Enterprises growing into some kind of monster that not even Bruce Wayne and Fox can control. Imagine Falcone discovering Batman's identity and plotting revenge. No reason why Crane/Scarecrow couldn't be involved in some way. All this is just off the top of my head, but it's the kind of stuff that would get me excited about a third film. They can always bring in zanier villains like the Penguin later on.

[Publius]

Imagine a character like Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS as part of the Nolanverse.

But such a character could BE The Penguin. No need for zaniness. As I'm sure has been said before, his nickname could simply be used sparingly (and not revealed, although most in the audience would already know, until well into the film), as they did with Two-Face.

I can just see him as a mostly regular-looking guy who's short, stout, and walks with a bit of a limp (which people say, behind his back, looks like a waddle). He has extremely low self-esteem and is prone to terrifying fits of rage.

Actually, I think it's interesting that none of the main characters so far in the Nolan-verse have gotten truly angry. Wayne/Batman and Dent had moments, but neither quite reached the level of bloodcurdling outburst. Like fear, balance, chaos, and duality, all of which we've already seen, that might be a good theme to work into Batman 3.

[Harmsway]

Now, I'm certainly not calling for something lightweight and goofy and Schumacheresque, or a return to the Adam West era, or anything like that, but at the same time would it be the end of the world if BB3 moved things in a slightly more optimistic direction?

No, not at all. BB3 needs to be optimistic, at least in its conclusion, and be the big upswing after the real low point of THE DARK KNIGHT.

The return of Falcone, possibly as the main villain, and ideally to be played by Tom Wilkinson again.

You mean you'd like to see Falcone as a crazed lunatic?

Who says the villain has to be a crazed lunatic? Besides, isn't Falcone one? To all intents and purposes, that is? As Crane says in BB, the work he offers must have its attractions for the insane. Not that that means Falcone's insane, but it's nonetheless a possibility that he's, well, nuts to some degree or another, no?

No, I meant you really wanted to see Falcone, the crazed nutball that Crane turned him into? 'Cause Falcone's current status is that he's chillin in a padded cell, spaced out. He's a goner. That's the reason Maroni has taken his place in THE DARK KNIGHT.

What I love about the Nolan Batman films are their gritty and realistic aspects, so I want a very down-to-earth baddie for the next one, especially as trying to top the Joker would be a hopeless task, and I don't see the need for Two-Face to return either. Falcone would be perfect for this kind of down-to-earth villain. Watching BB last night, I found myself enjoying Wilkinson's performance and wanting to see more of the character. But there's no reason the role couldn't be recast (a la Katie to Maggie) - maybe Stallone could do it. Or Gandolfini or someone else from THE SOPRANOS.

Now, I'm sure that the studio feels that Joe Public would want a more flamboyant, Jokeresque bad guy for the next film, so I'm sure I'm in a minority here, but it's nonetheless what I want.

I understand why you would want such a foe, but the thing is that it goes against the grain of where a third needs to to fully complete the arc started by the first two installments. In order to really continue opening onto the established Batman universe, and the Nolan bros have said that's their intent, organized crime needs to have died. And it pretty much has... organized crime was dealt a heavy blow in BEGINS, then it was all but demolished during THE DARK KNIGHT. What I imagine we'll really see in the third is that the the "freaks" have risen up and taken their place. It's definitely where the movies need to go if the third is to follow the comic book narrative.

It occurs to me that two of the most powerful forces in Gotham are two huge for-profit organisations, namely Wayne Enterprises and the Mob. It might be interesting to explore them more, and the relationships between them. If BB had a heavy BLADE RUNNER flavour, and TDK echoed HEAT, I'd love BB3 to have a GOODFELLAS feel, or maybe GOODFELLAS meeting THE INSIDER with classic Batman action sprinkled over the top. Imagine a character like Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS as part of the Nolanverse. Imagine a high-ranking Wayne Enterprises exec going into business with Falcone. Imagine Wayne Enterprises growing into some kind of monster that not even Bruce Wayne and Fox can control. Imagine Falcone discovering Batman's identity and plotting revenge. No reason why Crane/Scarecrow couldn't be involved in some way. All this is just off the top of my head, but it's the kind of stuff that would get me excited about a third film. They can always bring in zanier villains like the Penguin later on.

I daresay the opportunity for such a film was actually BATMAN BEGINS (its source material, BATMAN: YEAR ONE is actually such a story, with no extravagant villains at all and Falcone as its central threat), but now the arc of the Batman universe has left it behind, I think. But I understand you... I rather wish that the first film in Nolan's franchise had been BRUCE WAYNE, dealing with Bruce's origin stories, and his clash with Ra's al Ghul in an entirely international setting (nothing in the Americas at all). It would climax with his dispatching Ra's, and end on his decision to return to Gotham to save it. Then the second could have been BATMAN BEGINS, a mob-centric "Batman meets GOODFELLAS/THE INSIDER/THE GODFATHER" kind of story. And then we could have moved right into THE DARK KNIGHT.

But given the current state of the franchise, instead of seeing "Batman meets GOODFELLAS/THE INSIDER," I think it's more appropriate to see "Batman meets SE7EN/ZODIAC."

[HildebrandRarity]

But given the current state of the franchise, instead of seeing "Batman meets GOODFELLAS/THE INSIDER," I think it's more appropriate to see "Batman meets SE7EN/ZODIAC."

A.k.a. The Riddler?

[Loomis]

No, not at all. BB3 needs to be optimistic, at least in its conclusion, and be the big upswing after the real low point of THE DARK KNIGHT.

Exactly. Hence my picking the "optimistic" or "reverse-of-THE-DARK-KNIGHT" title that is THE CAPED CRUSADER.

No, I meant you really wanted to see Falcone, the crazed nutball that Crane turned him into? 'Cause Falcone's current status is that he's chillin in a padded cell, spaced out. He's a goner. That's the reason Maroni has taken his place in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Oops. I'd forgotten about that. Still, a "crazed" Falcone might be interesting (albeit that I'd only want him as the main villain if he were still in full command of his faculties). Besides, is it not possible that the character's madness could be cured?

I rather wish that the first film in Nolan's franchise had been BRUCE WAYNE, dealing with Bruce's origin stories, and his clash with Ra's al Ghul in an entirely international setting (nothing in the Americas at all). It would climax with his dispatching Ra's, and end on his decision to return to Gotham to save it. Then the second could have been BATMAN BEGINS, a mob-centric "Batman meets GOODFELLAS/THE INSIDER/THE GODFATHER" kind of story. And then we could have moved right into THE DARK KNIGHT.

I'd have loved that. You see, for me, the first half of BATMAN BEGINS is, in effect, a film called BRUCE WAYNE that I tend to switch off at the point where Falcone gets put on the searchlight. I have a lot of criticisms of BB, but I do really love that first half. Had I been in charge, it would have been a stand-alone, albeit perhaps expanded a touch, with more mob shenanigans and more globetrotting from Wayne.

Obviously, though, its not surprising that Warners didn't feel that they wanted to relaunch the Batman franchise with a down-to-earth film entitled BRUCE WAYNE that featured only a few minutes of our hero in the Batsuit. I, however, would have loved such a thing.

And then the sequel, BATMAN, would have followed 18 months later (or maybe six months, or whatever, a la the two KILL BILLs), being an expanded version of the second half of BB. And then, this year, THE DARK KNIGHT as is, followed in 2010 or 2011 by my THE CAPED CRUSADER.

[Loomis]

In order to really continue opening onto the established Batman universe, and the Nolan bros have said that's their intent, organized crime needs to have died. And it pretty much has... organized crime was dealt a heavy blow in BEGINS, then it was all but demolished during THE DARK KNIGHT. What I imagine we'll really see in the third is that the the "freaks" have risen up and taken their place.

I take it that the "freaks" are the likes of the Penguin, the Riddler and so on? Are you saying that a greater reliance on campy, flamboyant, costumed villains is inevitable?

Now, obviously, I realise that it's very unrealistic to hope for villains as down-to-earth as, say, Franz Sanchez, for this is, after all, the Batman franchise. Still, I suspect that one of the central problems for the people planning BB3 is the question whether to Try To Top The Joker™, or whether to strike out in a new direction instead. And, just as the Bond filmmakers were smart enough to hire the very different Daniel Craig instead of getting a Brosnan clone, I think it would be wise to put iconic comic book villains like the Joker on the backburner for a while. I understand that the character of Rachel Dawes was created purely for the Nolan films, so I reckon they should just create a new, relatively realistic villain for BB3 instead of grabbing the Penguin or whoever.

It's definitely where the movies need to go if the third is to follow the comic book narrative.

Hmmm.... yes, but, as I understand it, there's no "comic book narrative" as such to Batman. It's not like Harry Potter or STAR WARS where the whole "mythology" is centrally controlled and all laid out. Instead, there are various canons and interpretations, just like Bond, and fans just pick and mix what they want.

For instance, if you want to believe that Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered by a guy called Jack Napier who went on to become the Joker, you're free to do so - all you have to do is cite Burton's BATMAN. But this does, of course, contradict BATMAN BEGINS, just as there are various alternate universes for Bond across the novels and films (and comics and whatever else there may be). As an obvious example, it's as "correct" to say that James Bond earned his licence to kill in Prague in the early years of the 21st century (because that's what Eon's CASINO ROYALE says) as it is to cite whatever it was that Fleming wrote.

[Harmsway]

I take it that the "freaks" are the likes of the Penguin, the Riddler and so on? Are you saying that a greater reliance on campy, flamboyant, costumed villains is inevitable?

Only insofar as the Scarecrow, Joker, and Two-Face are "campy, flamboyant, costumed villains," but yes. Those kind of insane, theatrical foes aren't just inevitable, they're essential for the arc of Batman's beginning (well, at least in the next film... beyond that, you can start moving back and forth between foes who aren't necessarily of that variety).

It's definitely where the movies need to go if the third is to follow the comic book narrative.

Hmmm.... yes, but, as I understand it, there's no "comic book narrative" as such to Batman. It's not like Harry Potter or STAR WARS where the whole "mythology" is centrally controlled and all laid out. Instead, there are various canons and interpretations, just like Bond, and fans just pick and mix what they want.

You're right and wrong. There have been many different versions of Batman, and so there's freedom there. But there's ones that are more accepted than others, and there is an established current comic book continuity. It's loose, but it's there, and Nolan's definitely holding to the core conceits of those accepted "origin" comics. He's drawn from YEAR ONE and THE LONG HALLOWEEN, which are two sacred cows in Batman fandom and the most accepted take on the way Batman's early years progress. So Nolan's definitely taken the widely accepted direction of Batman's origin arc, which is namely that Batman comes in to fight mob and unintentionally ends up creating a new class of theatrical criminal, which then disposes of the organized crime and puts Batman in the place of being a more permanent protector figure.

[Loomis]

I take it that the "freaks" are the likes of the Penguin, the Riddler and so on? Are you saying that a greater reliance on campy, flamboyant, costumed villains is inevitable?

Only insofar as the Scarecrow, Joker, and Two-Face are "campy, flamboyant, costumed villains," but yes. Those kind of insane, theatrical foes aren't just inevitable, they're essential for the arc of Batman's beginning (well, at least in the next film... beyond that, you can start moving back and forth between foes who aren't necessarily of that variety).

It's definitely where the movies need to go if the third is to follow the comic book narrative.

Hmmm.... yes, but, as I understand it, there's no "comic book narrative" as such to Batman. It's not like Harry Potter or STAR WARS where the whole "mythology" is centrally controlled and all laid out. Instead, there are various canons and interpretations, just like Bond, and fans just pick and mix what they want.

You're right and wrong. There have been many different versions of Batman, and so there's freedom there. But there's ones that are more accepted than others, and there is an established current comic book continuity. It's loose, but it's there, and Nolan's definitely holding to the core conceits of those accepted "origin" comics. He's drawn from YEAR ONE and THE LONG HALLOWEEN, which are two sacred cows in Batman fandom and the most accepted take on the way Batman's early years progress.

Okay, but YEAR ONE appeared nearly fifty years after Batman was created and THE LONG HALLOWEEN even later! Curious that it should take many decades to get to those "two sacred cows in Batman fandom and the most accepted take on the way Batman's early years progress".

From the Wikipedia page on Batman: "Batman's history has undergone various revisions, both minor and major. Few elements of the character's history have remained constant. Scholars William Uricchio and Roberta E. Pearson noted in the early 1990s, "Unlike some fictional characters, the Batman has no primary urtext set in a specific period, but has rather existed in a plethora of equally valid texts constantly appearing over more than five decades.""

I know that you won't argue with any of that, and I'd certainly be very foolish to try to take you down on Batman knowledge. But this is what I'm driving at when I talk of there being no fixed mythology or arc that Nolan and co. must follow. I mean, if you want to be a real purist about James Bond it's very easy: you just cling to the Fleming books and shut out everything else, because Fleming is very obviously the fount of all Bond. With Batman it's rather different. Or so it seems to me, at any rate.

Personally, insofar as I'm a Batman fan, I'm a fan only of the Nolan films. Not interested in anything else.

[Harmsway]

Okay, but YEAR ONE appeared nearly fifty years after Batman was created and THE LONG HALLOWEEN even later! Curious that it should take many decades to get to those "two sacred cows in Batman fandom and the most accepted take on the way Batman's early years progress".

Well, the refinement of storytelling in comic medium only really came into being in the 1980s, so it's not at all surprising that we would see some of the best work for the character coming after that point.

But this is what I'm driving at when I talk of there being no fixed mythology or arc that Nolan and co. must follow.

Sure. And if he wanted to, Nolan could send BB3 into shocking, unexpected territory that violates everything in the comics.

But Nolan has elaborated at length as to how he sees the arc of Batman developing in his universe, and I don't forsee him violating that. He's followed that arc very closely with BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT, and I think now it's going to be taken to its logical conclusion in BB3.

[Judo chop]

Forgive my laziness, but can I just interject with a quick question…

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

Thank you,
JC

[Harmsway]

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

No.

[[dark]]

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

No.

What, Harmsway, do you think the likelihood is of Nolan sticking around? Comic book franchises seem to have a track record of directors legging it after two instalments (X-Men, the first Batman franchise, Superman (kind of)...).

[Harmsway]

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

No.

What, Harmsway, do you think the likelihood is of Nolan sticking around?

90%.

[[dark]]

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

No.

What, Harmsway, do you think the likelihood is of Nolan sticking around?

90%.

That's very reassuring to hear.

I recall reading an interview with Nolan, in which he expressed that film series have a near-unanimous record of delivering disappointing threequels, particularly in the comic book genre: Spider-man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Superman III, Batman Forever... Even in other genres, the third entry of a film series typically results in a disappointment: The Godfather Part III, Return of the Jedi and At World's End (though the latter series' decline began with Dead Man's Chest). In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

I have no doubts that Nolan is the man to buck this trend, but The Dark Knight is a massive act to follow. Warner Bros are certain to toss wads of cash Nolan's way, yet it seems at least a possibility that Nolan could decide to go out on that epic high.

However, I get the impression that Nolan feels a real ownership over this series - as he rightly should - and having expressed similar doubts over whether a sequel could top a first instalment, it appears Nolan is up for the challenge.

[Mister E]

However, I get the impression that Nolan feels a real ownership over this series -

Yes he certaintly dose. His Batman films are his films just like Bruce Timm's cartoons are his cartoons.

[Loomis]

In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

Well, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was very respectable, albeit that it didn't exactly trump its predecessors - it merely matched them. And, arguably, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III also cut the mustard.

[Publius]

In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

Well, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was very respectable, albeit that it didn't exactly trump its predecessors - it merely matched them. And, arguably, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III also cut the mustard.

Also, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY and ARMY OF DARKNESS.

[Judo chop]

In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

Well, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was very respectable, albeit that it didn't exactly trump its predecessors - it merely matched them. And, arguably, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III also cut the mustard.

Also, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY and ARMY OF DARKNESS.

REVENGE OF THE SITH was better than Episodes I or II.

[Publius]

REVENGE OF THE SITH was better than Episodes I or II.

*head explodes*

Suffice it to say, I disagree. I consider RotS to be the TWINE of the Star Wars franchise.

[Judo chop]

REVENGE OF THE SITH was better than Episodes I or II.

*head explodes*

Suffice it to say, I disagree. I consider RotS to be the TWINE of the Star Wars franchise.

Very well. Fair enough. If Episode III ~ TWINE, then…

Episode I ~ Casino Royale (1967)
and
Episode II ~ NSNA, or maybe the ‘Bond Girls Are Forever’ supplemental DVD.

Suffice it to say…

nothing.

[dodge]

In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

Well, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was very respectable, albeit that it didn't exactly trump its predecessors - it merely matched them. And, arguably, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III also cut the mustard.

I'd agree with you on MI3...but DHWAV, imo, simply cut the cheese.

[[dark]]

In fact, only Goldfinger springs to mind as a third film that's really knocked it out of the park.

Well, THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM was very respectable, albeit that it didn't exactly trump its predecessors - it merely matched them. And, arguably, DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE and MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III also cut the mustard.

Also, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY and ARMY OF DARKNESS.

REVENGE OF THE SITH was better than Episodes I or II.

Agree on The Bourne Ultimatum and Mission: Impossible III (though I don't feel the former "knocked it out of the park", per se, but rather maintained the quality of the first two instalments; but I feel the Bourne series is somewhat overrated anyway). Also agree on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, but I haven't seen any of the Evil Dead films. Die Hard with a Vengeance is probably the second-best in the franchise after the first film (though I also thoroughly enjoyed Die Hard 4.0).

As for Revenge of the Sith, it was better than the first two instalments, but they set a pretty low bar; contrast Attack of the Clones with The Dark Knight... which is my point: very few of these franchises with successful third instalments also have a second film that blows away the first:

Revenge of the Sith followed the lacklustre Attack of the Clones.
Mission: Impossible III followed the awful Mission: Impossible II.
Die Hard with a Vengeance followed the cookie-cutter Die Hard 2: Die Harder.

On the contrary, superior sequels typically result in disappointing threequels:

The Empire Strikes Back was followed by the disappointing Return of the Jedi.
Spider-man 2 was followed by the woeful Spider-man 3.
Batman Returns was followed by Batman Forever (adjective not required).

As I said before, if anyone can buck this trend and deliver a worthy threequel to follow (or even top?) a phenomenal sequel, it's Nolan. But the unprecedented success of The Dark Knight is making it an increasingly daunting challenge.

[Harmsway]

I don't believe REVENGE OF THE SITH was the best of the prequels by a long shot. You know what was...

THE PHANTOM MENACE. It's infamous in its reputation, but it's quite overstated. It might be boring, but it's nowhere near as overtly and abhorrently awful as the other two. Really, it's harmless. And because Lucas is actually using real sets, it feels like a genuine movie.

REVENGE OF THE SITH gets a pass from most folks 'cause it has what they wanted to see in it. But when you realize how horribly Lucas screws up all of the "sure thing" moments, it falls apart. It's a horrendous, appalling flick.

[dodge]

Has it been confirmed? BB3 under Nolan, that is?

No.

What, Harmsway, do you think the likelihood is of Nolan sticking around?

90%.

I say 98%.

Too much money to be made, and too much additional glory, for anyone to pass on--or be allowed to pass on.

[[dark]]

I don't believe REVENGE OF THE SITH was the best of the prequels by a long shot. You know what was...

THE PHANTOM MENACE. It's infamous in its reputation, but it's overstated. It might be boring, but it's nowhere near as overtly and abhorrently awful as the others. Really, it's harmless. And because Lucas is actually using real sets, it feels like a genuine movie.

I do think The Phantom Menace cops more flack than it deserves; the use of real sets does work in its favour over the following films and the pod-race is a cracking set piece. But as a pre-cursor to an exceptional trilogy, it's still a crushing disappointment.

REVENGE OF THE SITH gets a pass from most folks 'cause it has what they wanted to see in it. But when you realize how horribly Lucas screws up all of the "sure thing" moments, it falls apart. It's a horrendous, appalling flick.

"NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

True, but after enduring six hours of relative awfulness, finally seeing the moments that mattered (and, indeed, the moments we'd sat through the first two pics for) was a tremendous relief.

[Judo chop]

I don't believe REVENGE OF THE SITH was the best of the prequels by a long shot. You know what was...

THE PHANTOM MENACE. It's infamous in its reputation, but it's quite overstated. It might be boring, but it's nowhere near as overtly and abhorrently awful as the other two. Really, it's harmless. And because Lucas is actually using real sets, it feels like a genuine movie.

REVENGE OF THE SITH gets a pass from most folks 'cause it has what they wanted to see in it. But when you realize how horribly Lucas screws up all of the "sure thing" moments, it falls apart. It's a horrendous, appalling flick.

Hmmm… which would I rather watch?

That which I want to see done horrendously?

Or that which I don’t want to see done to mediocre effect?



It IS a quandary, no doubt!