The Dark Knight {Spoilers Abound}

DIrishB said:
I agree that more Batman movies deserve to be and should be made in the future. I just think that right now Nolan "owns" the franchise, and Bale "is" Batman. Its their baby right now, as it should be. I think if Nolan hasn't committed to doing a third Batman in the next 5 years it should go to someone else. That isn't to put a time limit on Nolan's use of the character in movies, but just that if a third Nolan Batman hasn't been done in the next 5-6 years, I find it less likely he'll come back the more time that passes, though conversly I think a certain amount of time is required before he comes back to the franchise (making other, non-Batman related films).
Click to expand...

If he won't commit to making a third Batman movie, WB shouldn't sit on their hands waiting for him. If he decides down the line he wants to do another, by all means welcome him back, but don't get handcuffed by his whims Favre-style.

If he won't commit to doing another movie by 2011 then get someone else. They can't just chill until 2013 hoping he changes his mind. At some point that lack of commitment has to be interpreted as a "no."
 
DIrishB said:
I agree that more Batman movies deserve to be and should be made in the future. I just think that right now Nolan "owns" the franchise, and Bale "is" Batman. Its their baby right now, as it should be. I think if Nolan hasn't committed to doing a third Batman in the next 5 years it should go to someone else. That isn't to put a time limit on Nolan's use of the character in movies, but just that if a third Nolan Batman hasn't been done in the next 5-6 years, I find it less likely he'll come back the more time that passes, though conversly I think a certain amount of time is required before he comes back to the franchise (making other, non-Batman related films).
Click to expand...

Agreed. The trick isn't forcing Batman movies into production so we'll have a new one every three years on the dot. It's making sure that you have a director and screenwriter with a clear vision before green lighting it. For those of you who are talking about the failure of earlier comic book movies, I don't think that even applies. The reason those franchises failed is that they set a formula for the franchise. The first X-Men and Spider-Man movies basically became the blueprint for the two films that would follow, and by the third, the formula had just been run to death.

This new Batman is an entirely different animal. While TDK maintained the tone and background of the first story, it was a very different style of film. BB was an origin story framed in a character study. TDK was a tight, frantic crime thriller in the same vein as Heat or Ronin, and the third one should and would fit into its own stylistic niche, determined by where the character needs to go next. It has the potential to beat the franchise curse by making each entry in the franchise different from the last, a film in its own right while still being embedded in the history of the established universe. Hypothetically, the series could go on for years and years, and hopefully they'll keep from falling into the trap of numbering the movies. If Nolan isn't onboard, and they can find a script that really kicks ***, and a director that has powerful vision for the character, then they should go for it.

Joe Kalicki said:
).
If he won't commit to making a third Batman movie, WB shouldn't sit on their hands waiting for him. If he decides down the line he wants to do another, by all means welcome him back, but don't get handcuffed by his whims Favre-style.
Click to expand...

See, my understanding of the Favre situation is that he wants to do another Iron Man movie, but Marvel is pushing to a ridiculously short production cycle that would prevent the script from getting the polish that it deserves.
 
Last edited:
Joe Kalicki said:
If he won't commit to making a third Batman movie, WB shouldn't sit on their hands waiting for him. If he decides down the line he wants to do another, by all means welcome him back, but don't get handcuffed by his whims Favre-style.

If he won't commit to doing another movie by 2011 then get someone else. They can't just chill until 2013 hoping he changes his mind. At some point that lack of commitment has to be interpreted as a "no."
Click to expand...

I was using the 5-6 year thing as a maximum. Though following the course set between Begins and TDK seems to make sense: 3 years between allows fans craving for another movie to build, and allows Nolan time to pursue other interesting directing jobs on non-Batman films so he doesn't burn out.

Zombipanda said:
Agreed. The trick isn't forcing Batman movies into production so we'll have a new one every three years on the dot. It's making sure that you have a director and screenwriter with a clear vision before green lighting it. For those of you who are talking about the failure of earlier comic book movies, I don't think that even applies. The reason those franchises failed is that they set a formula for the franchise. The first X-Men and Spider-Man movies basically became the blueprint for the two films that would follow, and by the third, the formula had just been run to death.

This new Batman is an entirely different animal. While TDK maintained the tone and background of the first story, it was a very different style of film. BB was an origin story framed in a character study. TDK was a tight, frantic crime thriller in the same vein as Heat or Ronin, and the third one should and would fit into its own stylistic niche, determined by where the character needs to go next. It has the potential to beat the franchise curse by making each entry in the franchise different from the last, a film in its own right while still being embedded in the history of the established universe. Hypothetically, the series could go on for years and years, and hopefully they'll keep from falling into the trap of numbering the movies. If Nolan isn't onboard, and they can find a script that really kicks ***, and a director that has powerful vision for the character, then they should go for it.
Click to expand...

You and I should join forces and take over Hollywood...then, the world!

See, my understanding of the Favre situation is that he wants to do another Iron Man movie, but Marvel is pushing to a ridiculously short production cycle that would prevent the script from getting the polish that it deserves.
Click to expand...

Umm, I'm pretty sure he's talking about Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers, not Jon Favreau (of Swingers and Iron Man directing fame).

I could be wrong, but he definitly wrote Favre.
 
DIrishB said:
You and I should join forces and take over Hollywood...then, the world!
Click to expand...

Word? I'm down with that.

DIrishB said:
Umm, I'm pretty sure he's talking about Brett Favre of the Green Bay Packers, not Jon Favreau (of Swingers and Iron Man directing fame).

I could be wrong, but he definitly wrote Favre.
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm wrong. I feel retarded.
 
Some ruminations on Two-Face in the third movie:

There is something to be thought of seeing Two-Face as an 'agent of chaos'. Joker's modus operandi was devolving the city's populace into panicking, terror-stricken monsters. To make the civilized people eat each other. To drive them mad.

But Two-Face wouldn't do that. Two-Face is different. To see his idea of an agent of chaos could be interesting.

For example, Two-Face's version of the two ships and their detonators dilemma would be this: there's only one ship. The ship with the convicts. The bomb goes off at midnight or if anyone jumps ship. The detonator has two buttons. One button disarms the bomb. The other makes it go off immediately.

The point is - Joker's chaos involved people killing other people for their own survival. Who lives and who dies. But Two-Face would be all about the fifty/fifty chance. You have as equal a chance of surviving as you do dying. Fifty/fifty. Note, it's not duality or a fixation on the number '2'. TDK's Two-Face doesn't care. TDK's Two-Face only cares about the fairness of an even chance. So his anarchic exploits would revolve around that premise.

The other thing is that Two-Face wouldn't do the public spectacle of threating dozens of innocent lives. He'd go after cops and criminals. And he'd do it face-to-face and yet, off the public radar. He'd be a specter tearing through both sides of law and order. The ultimate gambit being that essentially, he's flipping a coin: good heads, law wins. Bad heads, crime wins.

I suppose the idea is that in the third film, Gotham is at a crossroads. It's not as good as it could be (say, at the beginning of TDK) and yet it's not as bad as it was (at the beginning of BEGINS). And Two-Face's fifty/fifty gambit is to see if Gotham becomes the safe place he wanted it to be before his tragedy, or if it will fall back into corruption.

It'd be interesting, but there's a number of problems: first of all, Two-Face is dead. Otherwise, he's locked up somewhere but NO ONE is allowed to know he's there. The number of people who know Batman is innocent is Batman, Alfred, Lucius Fox, Jim Gordon, and Gordon's family. That's it. Which means that if Dent is alive, where's he being held? His face was not made public... I don't know. I have to watch the movie again, but I think him being alive doesn't add up with the coda of the film.

The second major problem is that it won't be as good as TDK. Two-Face's plan isn't as big as Joker's, and it's not as deep. It's interesting, but just not enough. Two-Face would need to be supplemented by something more.

But seeing his version of chaos would be interesting just... not particularly desirable.
 
very nice bass.

and the good thing about that is, teh cops and everyone will assume batman is doing this, and batman will keep having to take the blame.
 
marvelman said:
very nice bass.

and the good thing about that is, teh cops and everyone will assume batman is doing this, and batman will keep having to take the blame.
Click to expand...

yeah, i like that too. It's a very interesting idea for a way that they could make the character relevant in another movie.
 
J. Agamemnon said:
There's no way Ourchair would let that slide. It's on his radar like a 10 year old on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.
Click to expand...

That ok. I'll just distract Ourchair by jiggling my freshly shaved nuts around in front of him. Then after a few seconds when he realizes they don't belong to a 6-year-old and loses interest in them, I'll break out my shirtless pics of Leonardo DiCaprio. That'll keep him busy for hours.

And hours will be more than enough time for myself and Zombi to enact our plan of Hollywood domination (which strangely enough is sort of like Hollywood Squares...go figure).

Bass said:
but I think him [Two Face] being alive doesn't add up with the coda of the film.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been saying for the last week and a half.
 
DIrishB said:
That ok. I'll just distract Ourchair by jiggling my freshly shaved nuts around in front of him. Then after a few seconds when he realizes they don't belong to a 6-year-old and loses interest in them, I'll break out my shirtless pics of Leonardo DiCaprio. That'll keep him busy for hours.

And hours will be more than enough time for myself and Zombi to enact our plan of Hollywood domination (which strangely enough is sort of like Hollywood Squares...go figure).
Click to expand...

Except our plan has more Whoopi Goldberg.
 
Langsta said:
What kind of gasoline was Two-Face burned with? Is that considered kerosene?

I'm not familiar with gasoline types. I don't even really know what kerosene is.
Click to expand...

I've actually heard it was turpentine. I don't know if that's what it was or not. Joker later talks about what he'd done with some bullets and gasoline. I do think it was an oil of some sort, maybe kerosene because it burned on his face rather than explode like gasoline would.

But that's just semantics.

Bass said:
It'd be interesting, but there's a number of problems: first of all, Two-Face is dead. Otherwise, he's locked up somewhere but NO ONE is allowed to know he's there. The number of people who know Batman is innocent is Batman, Alfred, Lucius Fox, Jim Gordon, and Gordon's family. That's it. Which means that if Dent is alive, where's he being held? His face was not made public... I don't know. I have to watch the movie again, but I think him being alive doesn't add up with the coda of the film.

The second major problem is that it won't be as good as TDK. Two-Face's plan isn't as big as Joker's, and it's not as deep. It's interesting, but just not enough. Two-Face would need to be supplemented by something more.

But seeing his version of chaos would be interesting just... not particularly desirable.
Click to expand...

That's supposing that Sal Maroni's dead from the car crash (I too suppose he is) and that Ramirez doesn't put two and two together. Or someone who knows Ramirez can put two and two together. Because of all the people we saw Dent kill (Cop in bar, Maroni and driver) Ramirez was the only one besides Joker who got the good heads.

Also, Joker knows although who will listen to him? And why would he want to see Batman be absolved of Dent's crimes?

Just babbling because your post made me count how many do know Batman's not the murderer or who could easily figure it out.
 
Hellsbuttmonkey said:
Hehe...




To see Dents legacy and reputation destroyed?
Click to expand...

well joker already knows the truth. FOr him it's not so much getting a kick that everyone else will know. He proved to himself and batman that the cities golden boy could be corrupted. His next step was to corrupt the cititizens but it didn't pan out.
 
I saw this a second time over the weekend (and it is better the second time), and the audience was absolutely going gaga for it. They applauded at at least 15 different points in the film. Fifteen!! I stopped counting after that because I wanted to just focus on the movie.

The oddest incidence where there was clapping? When the hospital blew up.

:?


:lol:
 
If they have to have Catwoman, Rosario Dawson would be a good choice.
 
ProjectX2 said:
If they have to have Catwoman, Rosario Dawson would be a good choice.
Click to expand...

While I'd say she'd be great for it a few years ago, I still think she'd remind too many people of Halle Berry. Jolie wouldn't be bad, but there's tons of people that could do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top