Batman After Christopher Nolan

[Gothamite]

Also I would love to have a nolan style series like on HBO or something. I think you can introduce any Batman villains with new twist and edge, they couldn't work in a movie but can work beautifully on the small screen.

I have a very specific idea for a Batman TV show, that borrows elements from the premise of Gotham Central, Nolan's films and a lot of Denny O'Neil's prose Batman stories. More on that later.

 

[SSJmole]

If the Nolan films serve as a base set of films on which other directors can base their Batman stories, does this mean that Two-Face, one of Batman's top two or three villains, should no longer be seen on film? This is the big problem I have with TDK...now to have Two-Face in a future movie, they'd either have to break continuity or do a reboot.

They technically don't need to do either. Remember after TDK people were debating on if he was alive or not. It's quiet possible they could just use that. (in my opinion he's dead and the TDK wasted him) but also how many batman films can their be?

I'm serious about that last bit. It's not going to get as many as say James Bond. BUT even if they did Penguin , Riddler , Catwoman , Ivy , Harley , Bane and more. There is enough in his rouges gallery to not need to have him back.

 

[Gothamite]

I'm serious about that last bit. It's not going to get as many as say James Bond. BUT even if they did Penguin , Riddler , Catwoman , Ivy , Harley , Bane and more. There is enough in his rouges gallery to not need to have him back.

There has technically been 38 theatrical releases (where you had to pay a full admission fee to see the adventure, however long it was or whether or not it was created using real moving pictures or animated ones) with accompanying posters, marketing and merchandise with the word "Batman" in the title, plus one that was called The Dark Knight.

Far more than James Bond and Godzilla and only about twenty or so less than Sherlock Holmes.

 

[SSJmole]

There has technically been 38 theatrical releases (where you had to pay a full admission fee to see the adventure, however long it was or whether or not it was created using real moving pictures or animated ones) with accompanying posters, marketing and merchandise with the word "Batman" in the title, plus one that was called The Dark Knight.

Far more than James Bond and Godzilla and only about twenty or so less than Sherlock Holmes.

No the same series though

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

They technically don't need to do either. Remember after TDK people were debating on if he was alive or not. It's quiet possible they could just use that. (in my opinion he's dead and the TDK wasted him) but also how many batman films can their be?

That's true assuming that Nolan doesn't address the ultimate fate of Dent in the third film, which I would be shocked if he were to do. I can't help but think that whether or not Dent is alive or dead will be answered in the third film. As far as how many Batman films there can be...I think that's dependent upon how long these films stay profitable.

There is enough in his rouges gallery to not need to have him back.

That's definitely true. It would just seem like a waste to me if Two-Face, one of Batman's top three villains, were never to see the light of the silver screen again. He's a far more compelling a character than the vast majority of Batman's rouges.

 

[fenway]

There has technically been 38 theatrical releases (where you had to pay a full admission fee to see the adventure, however long it was or whether or not it was created using real moving pictures or animated ones) with accompanying posters, marketing and merchandise with the word "Batman" in the title, plus one that was called The Dark Knight.

Far more than James Bond and Godzilla and only about twenty or so less than Sherlock Holmes.

More than Godzilla? For some reason I thought that number was up around 50.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

Basically, it all depends on who they get... If another great director wanted to make his mark on the Batman mythos, I would be all about it. Ramp up the science fiction a bit... Do a creepy Poison Ivy movie, or a Clayface movie (actually those two would make an effective pairing), or even Man-Bat. If they got the right man, I would be down for another trilogy set further along, but otherwise doing one-shot Batfilms by A-List directors would be the way to go. I think James Bond is the perfect example.

I don't want anyone barring themselves to Nolan's rules. I think we're fine seeing some science fiction, or even bringing in Jason Blood and have the master detective forced to go up against the Supernatural. I think Robin could fit fine in a series like this. Find a great young actor to play Dick, and then when he gets too old you can pick up Jason or Tim, and have the birth of Nightwing and a potential spin-off... I hope they play their cards right, because there's a lot they can do.

I would also agree that I wouldn't necessarily want to see a "Dark Knight Returns" movie, although proper direction and casting could outweigh that. If it were the mid-nineties and they somehow convinced Eastwood to star and direct, and somehow managed to get Bowie as the Joker, that would be one thing... But I just don't think going down that road would be very effective.

 

[Gothamite]

More than Godzilla? For some reason I thought that number was up around 50.

There's only 29 Godzilla films.

Plus, it should be noted that I'm pretty sure that if and when Batman ever enters the public domain (which will happen before James Bond), there'll be a ****-ton of Batman films made by other companies. Although I'm not sure what the laws are regarding cinematic adaptations of literature in the public domain.

I would also agree that I wouldn't necessarily want to see a "Dark Knight Returns" movie, although proper direction and casting could outweigh that. If it were the mid-nineties and they somehow convinced Eastwood to star and direct, and somehow managed to get Bowie as the Joker, that would be one thing... But I just don't think going down that road would be very effective.

For me anyway, The Dark Knight Returns is all about knowing and feeling the character in advance of the story. I'm just not sure it would be nearly as effective if they just placed a brand new Batman actor into the movie; an actor who has never 'been' Batman before. The story would still work and the movie would be compelling, but just imagine how perfect it would be if they waited and used someone who had actually played Batman before (like Bale, or even Keaton and of course Conroy). I refuse to get behind a DKR film unless it uses a former Batman actor.

It would be like if they decided to make Rocky Balboa with Clint Eastwood.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

I'm not sure I buy that argument, but hey, if 20-30 years from now, Christian Bale wants to don the cape and cowl once more, I'm certainly not going to stop him.

EDIT: But to add a second thought... If they were going to do a Sherlock Holmes story with an 80 something Sherlock, I wouldn't bat my eyes if they cast an actor like Ian McKellan rather than go with a former Holmes actor. Certainly, it might be nice to see someone who's done the part before, particularly if they did a good job... But if an actor did a good enough job, I would be all for a new incarnation.

 

[Gothamite]

No the same series though

You're right, it is no the same series. But the Bondian era of carefree, standalone movies has come to an end. Movies that carry on in serialised format is the trend today and probably will be for some time. Batman could easily be the franchise to perfect that format with different series of trilogies with their own self-contained (or loosely connected) stories.

 

[DARKKNIGHT]

Ian McKellen as Batman...

I like it!!

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Jeffrey Donovan would make a good Tommy Elliot.

Granted, this doesn't contribute much to this thread, but hey, I don't mind.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

Proj and Langsta said it best on the first page....a good stand-alone film every few years in the tradition of Bond films.