The Dark Knight Rises, And the other Nolan Batman Films Options

[Jessopjessopjess...]

The confirmed title for the new Batman film is The Dark Knight!

And Heath Ledger is confirmed as The Joker!

So....what do you think?

Great title, great villian, still not sure about Ledger, but I respect Nolan and he must have good reasoning.

The opposite of Gavin Eslers' unruly mouth - it's like a slit in a cushion.

[Starscream`s Gho...]

I'm sure Ledger will be able to pull of a psychotic smile and 'do' evil...

S'funny. I'm sure he'll be a big pile of poo.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

S'funny. I'm sure he'll be a big pile of poo.

I respect Nolan but i just cannot see it.

Jessop - i thought you'd appreciated that.

"and the letter of the law is ..."

Sefi x

[Jessopjessopjess...]

"and the letter of the law is ..."

...in red, on blue...

[Crutch]

Sunnyboy Joker? Shit, if Nolan will do with the next part the same as with Batman Begins, any villian would be wasted, since he wouldn't get enough room. So it doesn't matter who plays who as long as Bale can take his shirt of and play a Batman-hung over Bruce Wayne. Nolan will direct the thing, right? I thing he shouldn't do it. The directing was the weakest point in the last movie. He's good for suspense and characters, but he appearently can't catch the sense of wonder a super hero needs to be on the screen.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

...in red, on blue...

"J"

Sefi x

[Jessopjessopjess...]

Shit, if Nolan will do with the next part the same as with Batman Begins, any villian would be wasted, since he wouldn't get enough room. So it doesn't matter who plays who as long as Bale can take his shirt of and play a Batman-hung over Bruce Wayne. Nolan will direct the thing, right? I thing he shouldn't do it. The directing was the weakest point in the last movie. He's good for suspense and characters, but he appearently can't catch the sense of wonder a super hero needs to be on the screen.

Remember, the Batman set-up will not be such a major part of the next film. We know the character's origin and motivations now, and so it should dive right in to the action. The Joker will likely have some of his origin explored, so that should pull focus from Bale - not that I thought that was a problem in 'Begins'.

[Crutch]

I have more the Burton versions of Batman in mind, where he almost totally focussed on the villians and degraded Batman more to a plot device to get the story going. Batman Returns is still my favorite.

And the whole half hour of "I'm sticking this blue flower onto my jacket and I'll walk up this mountain to have some cheap choreographed fights and lame pseudo philosophy to set up some lame pseudo villian" in the beginning of Batman Begins could have been skipped to give Scarecrow some evil mayhem screen-time. It could have been so much better with a good villian. The whole birth of Batman could have fitted into a montage sequence. Even Rocky had a montage.

[Kick in the Head]

I have more the Burton versions of Batman in mind, where he almost totally focussed on the villians and degraded Batman more to a plot device to get the story going. Batman Returns is still my favorite.

And the whole half hour of "I'm sticking this blue flower onto my jacket and I'll walk up this mountain to have some cheap choreographed fights and lame pseudo philosophy to set up some lame pseudo villian" in the beginning of Batman Begins could have been skipped to give Scarecrow some evil mayhem screen-time. It could have been so much better with a good villian. The whole birth of Batman could have fitted into a montage sequence. Even Rocky had a montage.

I do think the start of Batman Begins was pretty laborious, but once the film was over, it does fit in with everything. And I thought Scarecrow was popping up in the sequel anyway? At least, that's what I recall reading...somewhere...sometime...

I'm optimistic with Ledger though. He's not obviously creepy - but that's the point I guess. They wanted to get someone of a similar age to Bale who was a big star but still unconventional. He's not done anything similar to the part before, which probably gives him a lot of scope to just go nuts and run with it.

I'm sticking myself firmly in the YAY! LEDGER camp now and will be telling everyone I knew it all along when he turns out to be smashing.

Unless of course, he's terrible - in which case, you can quote me on this, and point, and laugh, and never trust my judgement again...

[Stink_Palm]

Nolan got it perfect in the the last film.

You guys seem too caught up on the Burton Batman's which were absolute crap. The films are supposed to be about Batman, not the villains. Batman Returns is almost as bad as Batman and Robin.

Begins was an origin story, it was absolutely neccessary that we had the first third with him recovering from what happened to his parents and travelling the world. If it was done in some lame montage it would have barely meant anything. We learnt so much about his character and motivations through that first 30 minutes and a montage would never come close to expressing that.

And Scarecrow had the perfect screentime in the movie. We actually only had a small cameo of the "real" Scarecrow near the end, and it was a brillaint teaser for if he ever comes back.

Nolan doesn't put villains in the movie for the sake of it. He puts them in there to suit the story and the Bruce/Batman character. The Scarecrow was a brilliant device to illuminate Bruce's fear about himself and of his city. Ra's Al Ghu was there to remind Bruce that his motivations are for justice not revenge. Carmine Falcone was there to illustrate the corrupt Gotham city that Batman is there to fight. They all have a purpose.

Burton put villains in there for style. The dark and gothic style he seems so obsessed with. They served no other purpose but to entertain and did nothing for the Batman character. It's not surprising Burton wants to move away from this idea, and I thank God he does.

[Serafina_Pekkala]

Batman Returns is almost as bad as Batman and Robin.

BR was fabulous. I liked Nolan's approach too but for different reasons. Burton is more fairy tale and that has lots going for it. It isn't a question of either/or to me - i like both but i see flaws in Burton's versions and Nolan.

Sefi x

This post has been edited by Serafina_Pekkala: Aug 1 2006, 12:24 PM

[Stink_Palm]

Ledger wasn't my first choice, obviously, but i'm pretty damn excited by it. He certainly looks the part, and though he hasn't done much like this before (which is a good thing, I add), his performance in Lords of Dogtown is supposedly a pretty promising look at what he could pull off.

And, I mean, look at this:



That looks beyond awesome. Nolan is making sure he doesn't come close to Nicholson's performance from the first Batman. Ledger won't play the character as funny as Nicholson, he'll play a much more psychotic Joker, which is much more interesting and fitting of the Begins universe. And I'm fairly sure he won't dance to Prince... (worst scene ever)

Philip Hoffman is also rumoured for Penguin. If he's cast I don't think the world could take the awesomeness.

The Dark Knight is a fantastic title.

[Crutch]

The films are supposed to be about Batman, not the villains. Batman Returns is almost as bad as Batman and Robin.

Says who? Burton appearently though the films should be about the villians, because he thought Batman/Wayne was a quite lame and boring character, about which was everything told after a 75 seconds flash-back (and the later confrontation with the Joker), which actually was right the way Burton told the first movie.

Begins was an origin story, it was absolutely neccessary that we had the first third with him recovering from what happened to his parents and travelling the world. If it was done in some lame montage it would have barely meant anything. We learnt so much about his character and motivations through that first 30 minutes and a montage would never come close to expressing that.

And Scarecrow had the perfect screentime in the movie. We actually only had a small cameo of the "real" Scarecrow near the end, and it was a brillaint teaser for if he ever comes back.

He could have told it all in 15 minutes. To be honest, I really enjoyed BB, except that there was a huge lack of over the top super villianness and that Wayne Sr. was the absolute over-humanist, who builds the train in the morning, cares for his son at noon and transplants hearts in the evening, while owning a multi-billion dollar business. But now, when I think about it, it's a quite lame movie, with not much happening. It's all nice to see Batman relationship to Gordon and stuff, but to be honest, the whole movie wasn't much more than a - as you said - teaser to restart the franchise, instead of telling a really good interesting story. And this time it's even more about style and prestige [/pun] than the Burton movies.

Nolan doesn't put villains in the movie for the sake of it. He puts them in there to suit the story and the Bruce/Batman character. The Scarecrow was a brilliant device to illuminate Bruce's fear about himself and of his city. Ra's Al Ghu was there to remind Bruce that his motivations are for justice not revenge. Carmine Falcone was there to illustrate the corrupt Gotham city that Batman is there to fight. They all have a purpose.

I don't think, Nolan deserves lot credit for the movie, since all he did was putting his friend in the role of the fat cop. He is able to so much more as a director and just does himself disgrace to direct such a blockbuster without putting any of his own wit in it.

[NiteFall]

Hate to be the one to say it, but is there an actual link to the proper announcement. Rather than Aint it cool news' announcement of the announcement. What with AICN being the internet equivalent of "I heard off some bloke down the pub..."

[Jessopjessopjess...]

all he did was putting his friend in the role of the fat cop.

Who did the filming then?