Will the Batman reboot be as accepted as Nolan's?

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

A Batman fan shouldn't be excited just because a new Batman film comes out sooner than later. They should allow the current franchise some breathing room and allow the future incarnations to come at a significantly later date rather than trying to process and squeeze it out. It just seems disrespectful to the previous filmmaker's work.

Your suggestion just seems disrespectful to the actual character of Batman. Nolan had his movies, and they were good, and guess what, you can watch them all you want, and always will be able to just like Burton's and Schumacher's. Why is live action and animated so different? Why are people not so up in arms about all of the animated movies coming out all the time? Why is that not as disrespectful to the directors, producers, voice actors, animators, ect? It would almost be like saying, "hey, Miller just came out with The Dark Knight Returns, nobody can make any more comics or stories for at least 10 years....we need this book to sink in, so we're not disrespectful to the creator".

To me, as a fan of Batman, the more the better.

Should Ninja Turtles fans be 'happy' and 'thankful' that Bay's giving them a new live action Turtles film?

Where are you going with this example? The last live action TMNT movie was in '93. Is 19 years too soon to reboot?

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by Travesty

To me, as a fan of Batman, the more the better.

It's more about who's behind it. I'm excited about the prospect of a new cinematic Batman interpretation coming up, but the word about who's going to do it could potentially be a deal breaker. I would still probably end up seeing it but I could be very skeptical about it and maybe end up not liking it.

[Bruce Malone]

Well you've stated your position a number of times "more is better". The rest of use are saying quality matters over quantity and that a good batman film is not a fast food commodity where it's just churned out. It should be seen as good film making with time and effort put in.

Also how can you compare the amount of work and effort that goes into a live action feature film with that of an animated film? You might as well compare animated features to comics and ask why new batman animated films don't come out every month?

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Well you've stated your position a number of times "more is better". The rest of use are saying quality matters over quantity and that a good batman film is not a fast food commodity where it's just churned out. It should be seen as good film making with time and effort put in.

And where did I say I want them to sloppily put together a movie like a "fast food item"? It seems some of you are only sensing "doom and gloom". What does time have to do with picking a good team to make a new movie? They were already thinking of a new franchise before TDKR even came out. It's not like they're rushing things, like you keep implying. I don't see time as an issue. It just seems like some of you need Nolan's movies to stand for 10+ years, and I don't see why. If the team behind it is good, I don't see what's so wrong with being excited about a new Batman movie. And seeing as we don't know anything, how could you not be anything but excited about the prospect of a new Batman movie? That's what I don't get. You're already saying it'll be worse, when none of us have a clue. Strange....

Also how can you compare the amount of work and effort that goes into a live action feature film with that of an animated film? You might as well compare animated features to comics and ask why new batman animated films don't come out every month?

This still doesn't make sense. So it's a time issue of how long it takes to make a film now? Well, you can make a movie within 2-3 years, so why are you up in arms about a new Batman movie coming out in around 5-7?

[Bruce Malone]

The thing you don't understand is we're or at least i am against a timetable being set up right now. When WB goes boom we want a bat flick to come out in 2015. All of a sudden it goes from being a natural process where the right story and team can come toghether to we have to find the right team by this date because the corporate bosses say so.

Which is probably why JL seems to be struggling now due to WB's seeming interference and somewhat rushing attitude. A new batman film will come out when the time is right and the demand is there and the right people are there. Not when WB has run out of other ideas for franchises and gets lazy.

Besides Batman fans are freaking lucky. In the time between 1989 and today there have been have been 7 batman movies. In the same time there has been 1 superman film and a pretty crappy 1 at that.

[Travesty]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

Besides Batman fans are freaking lucky. In the time between 1989 and today there have been have been 7 batman movies. In the same time there has been 1 superman film and a pretty crappy 1 at that.

Yes, Batman fans are lucky, but that very example proves that times doesn't equate to quality...but at least it's something to look forward to.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Mandalore464

If only the big money guys felt that way...

I expect a new Batman film within the next five years. Seven years max. Much sooner if we're talking about a JL movie.

Yes, but even still, let's consider the biggest money guy on the block: Nolan, Thomas, and Michael Uslan. These three love the character and they have some pretty big roles in WB. So much so that they just might consider what Bruce Malone is calling "quality over quantity." Nolan's already said how he feels his take on the character is best left out of any crossovers, and I can't tell you how much I agree with the guy on this. It isn't like Marvel Comics where every character is made by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, put into New York, and created with a purpose of crossovers and inter-connectivity. With DC you have characters who were created independent of each other, and each really belongs to their own separate genre, like Batman to crime-noir/detective stories, Superman to science-fantasy, Wonder Woman to mythology. Nolan's trilogy gets a lot of beef from fans and general audiences today for starting a "dark and gritty" trend, but Batman always was dark and gritty to begin with; he already was a realistic superhero (at least the most realistic when compared to others) by the simple fact that this was a character who didn't have superpowers -- we've all heard that "anyone can become Batman, that's why he's my favourite superhero etc." all before Nolan made his movies. Next to Batman, a character like Wonder Woman or Superman just feels like they're out of place (or vice versa) since you're really shoe-horning a fantasy character into a noir world. It works, and it can be done, of course, but it'd be limiting the potential of exploring Batman's own genre to its fullest -- or the other character's for that matter. It works in comics, but when you're adapting something with so much history you don't want to go in and adapt the fanciful ones, you adapt the ones that ring truest with the character. Nolan's films are downright the most definitive Batman movies on film we've seen so far, and another reboot so soon would simply undo that.

For the character itself, not for a trilogy made by Christopher Nolan. He'd still retain his reputation even if there's a crappy Batman movie that's made, but the character and the franchise wouldn't be able to shoulder a bad movie this close to a successful trilogy when people will start getting the impression that only Nolan can make a successful Batman movie... and that'd be terrible for the character. It'd take him back to 1997. And that isn't an exaggeration. Remember the first beef that people threw out when Avengers was released at WB? No, not that The Avengers was successful, but the buzz was that "WB wasted their opportunity because they didn't hire Joss Whedon for Wonder Woman all those years ago." Team Marvel even joked about it at an interview (and i sorta agree) BUT NO that is NOT the case. It never was. Whedon's pitch for Wonder Woman was crappy. It was written by someone who admitted that he "never got the character" who said that "Batman has it all: he has all those 'must-tell' graphic novels, but Wonder Woman doesn't" in other words here was a movie being written and directed by a guy who didn't respect the character and who was stubborn enough to not get a writer who did know. But you don't hear that about the director. He's moved on. The world knows that Whedon can do no wrong, like Nolan. His reputation stayed, what suffered was the character.

My point is, don't make a Batman reboot right away. Don't make another Batman movie period. Let the world savor this. Characters like Superman and Wonder Woman, and the Flash, even the Green Lantern are waiting to be adapted and if done with the same care and love as Nolan's films, they have the potential to be just big. It's obvious for Superman, and even for Green Lantern whose fan-base is up there as much as Batman's (the comic-readers at least).

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

^^^

My point exactly. Same with TIH it was wasn't even an origin story and people still felt it was too soon as well.

If WB is smart they won't rush this one. The Dark Knight series for lack of a better comparison perhaps is pretty much the star wars trilogy of comic book films. It has had that big an impact. It will be hard to follow up this without some space.

WB should focus on the MOS series and maybe JL if that gets off the ground then when a good story presents itself come back to batman.

I think you've pretty much covered how I feel about this on all your posts. I agree with all of them. They should take their time and let it roll. TASM was knocked because it wasn't exactly a stellar film to begin with, but does the same rule apply for The Incredible Hulk? The way Ruffalo was embraced in The Avengers would disagree with you, and it isn't exactly news that producers think that Spider-Man and Hulk are Marvel's Superman and Batman...

What WB needs is someone like Kevin Feige who respects the characters and is geared up for adaptation. Not Avi Arad who wants to see as many characters adapted as soon as possible. I think Nolan, Uslan, and even the Donners are good producers in this regard. Not, y'know, Greg Berlanti or those other guys at CW.

[Nave 'Torment']

I'd rather see the JLA characters in their own extensive trilogies than have them rushed together into a JLA film that is inspired by, of all things, the competition's greatest success. If WB sticks to their formula of focusing on one character franchise at a time, they'd have golden tickets like TDK. As a plus, they'd even be able to laugh at the competition for putting quantity over quality. A major studio like WB should know this.

On the other hand, they could make a JSA movie instead. I'd be up for a Golden Age-specific roster. And, if they absolutely must make a JLA movie, there's always my favourite roster: Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash, and the Martian Manhunter. Characters who seem like public heroes instead of urban vigilantes or fantasy kings (Bats, Arrow, Aquaman, Canary, Zatanna etc. etc.) But that'd just piss everyone off. I'd rather they just stick to one character franchises, and if they're successful, trilogies out of them. The GL mythos have so much left to explore it's hilarious that anyone would think that one bad movie would destroy its potential. And let's not even talk about Wonder Woman. Poor Di.

[Squaremaster316]

Many say that the reboot just has to be good, but I think it's more than that.

IMO, the rebooted Batman will have to be seen by the general public/fanboys-at-large as being at least as good as TDKR or Batman Begins/close-to-TDK in quality to be truly accepted.

TASM wasn't well received by fans for being rebooted too soon after Raimi's films, as well as being another origin story, but it had the compensation of being regarded by critics and audiences as an improvement over the last film of the previous franchise, which was met with significantly "meh" fanfare.

TDKR, regardless of some of the issues/nitpicks, is regarded by the populace as a significantly superior product to Spider-Man 3.

[kewlmatto]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

TASM wasn't well received by fans for being rebooted too soon after Raimi's films, as well as being another origin story, but it had the compensation of being regarded by critics and audiences as an improvement over the last film of the previous franchise, which was met with significantly "meh" fanfare.

TDKR, regardless of some of the issues/nitpicks, is regarded by the populace as a significantly superior product to Spider-Man 3.

You have to remember that Batman Begins was not that successful upon its initial release. It only made about $205 million domestic, under-performing significantly (Superman Returns actually fared better). People forget this because of what has happened since. The mainstream audience had 'Batfatigue' at the time and even though Begins was exceptional, it didn't run like a bull out of the gate at all. But the DVD sales and rentals were strong and it built a good base for The Dark Knight to make a home run.

The same strategy will probably apply to TASM and its sequel, albeit to a smaller degree (there is no 'Ledger factor'). It will rent really well and the next movie will be much more successful.

This tends to happen with reboots. It's always hard for the first one out to establish a new tone, but if a studio sticks with it they will reap the benefits.

Yes, Nolan's trilogy is a tougher act to follow. But to put Batman on another 7-year hiatus is a disservice to the character, who has so many great stories to tell.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by kewlmatto

You have to remember that Batman Begins was not that successful upon its initial release. It only made about $205 million domestic, under-performing significantly (Superman Returns actually fared better). People forget this because of what has happened since. The mainstream audience had 'Batfatigue' at the time and even though Begins was exceptional, it didn't run like a bull out of the gate at all. But the DVD sales and rentals were strong and it built a good base for The Dark Knight to make a home run.

The same strategy will probably apply to TASM and its sequel, albeit to a smaller degree (there is no 'Ledger factor'). It will rent really well and the next movie will be much more successful.

This tends to happen with reboots. It's always hard for the first one out to establish a new tone, but if a studio sticks with it they will reap the benefits.

Yes, Nolan's trilogy is a tougher act to follow. But to put Batman on another 7-year hiatus is a disservice to the character, who has so many great stories to tell.

Actually, Batman Begins did better domestically than Superman Returns, but that's irrelevant.

When Batman Begins did hit theaters, it was 8 years after the critically derided Batman & Robin, so audiences would have been much more accepting of a new Batman film as it had nowhere to go but up.

Begins, however, while not record breaking in its performance, not only brought Batman back to prominence, but it was a film seen by many upon its release as not only Better than Schumacher's films, not just better than Burton's, but a film that many felt was the best superhero film ever at the time and one that still makes numerous top 5 list to this day.

TASM, however, while regarded as better than Spider-man 3, is seen by the general audience and critics as inferior to the first two, and nowhere near the level of The Dark Knight Rises or Avengers in the same year.

Still, this is better than the X-Men scenario, where X3 derailed the franchise, but rather than fix it with a better film, XMO:W came along and caused even more problems. Unfortunately, For Batman, this is the likely scenario to befall the upcoming reboot.

Out of the 3 Nolan films, Batman Begins seems to be regarded as the least of them. If the next film is not seen by the general audience/fanboys/critics as being at least as good, it could trigger a backlash and derail the next installment's momentum.

Personally, I feel that rushing a new version out asap is more of a disservice to the character than waiting for a really good story to come along. I'm not saying that we couldn't get a good film in just a couple of years, but setting up for a new continuity so soon just seems like a quick money grab rather than an attempt to tell a good story.

[Nave 'Torment']

Thing about superhero films is that no matter how you put it, even the worst ones make enough profit for producers to invest in them. What matters more is their critical acclaim, their quality, not the amount of box-office returns.

[SpiderBat]

Batman movies will always be accepted. They may not be as good but they'll still be accepted by most.

[Two-Face]

Yes Nolans films are the best Batman films but I don't want to wait 10+years I think 5 to 6 years is enough. The way I see it, the movies are like comics and directors are the writers they put their visions on the charcater while respecting material either you like it or you don't.

Nolan did great job and it's some else's vision take on the character. I wouldn't want another director to continue what Nolan had done. Basically no sequel to TDKR. without Nolan and Co hence why WB right to reboot.

[kewlmatto]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

Actually, Batman Begins did better domestically than Superman Returns, but that's irrelevant.

Ah sorry checked and you're right, thanks. Was thinking about Superman's worldwide gross. I still think it is relevant though. Batman Begins had an afterburn effect from DVD and rentals which amounted to a strong build up to a successful franchise. The film itself was about as successful as Superman.

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

When Batman Begins did hit theaters, it was 8 years after the critically derided Batman & Robin, so audiences would have been much more accepting of a new Batman film as it had nowhere to go but up.

The general public didn't embrace it all that quickly. Of course fans loved it, but it took quite a while to gain traction. Even though it was 8 years later, the general audience still thought Batman movies were fairly lame - hangovers like Schumacher's tend to last a long time. But Begins DVD sales and rentals were through the roof due to word of mouth - this was months after its release though.

The Amazing Spider-Man, I agree, is not as strong as Batman Begins, but it is a solid, well-made film (even if it does retread the origin). Give it time and I bet you'll see the same thing happen to a lesser degree with TASM. It grossed about the same as Batman Begins domestically once you adjust for inflation. It is not a failure by any stretch of the imagination, but it did underperform like Begins. It came 5 years after Spidey 3, which is not all that different from 8 years.

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

Out of the 3 Nolan films, Batman Begins seems to be regarded as the least of them. If the next film is not seen by the general audience/fanboys/critics as being at least as good, it could trigger a backlash and derail the next installment's momentum.

Personally, I feel that rushing a new version out asap is more of a disservice to the character than waiting for a really good story to come along. I'm not saying that we couldn't get a good film in just a couple of years, but setting up for a new continuity so soon just seems like a quick money grab rather than an attempt to tell a good story.

I think fan backlashes are very overstated. If you were to believe the interwebs, TASM might as well have failed before it was released with people crying 'send rights back to Marvel'. 'Backlashes' like you describe don't really hinder a film in a huge way until well after the film is out (e.g. Superman Returns). But TASM grossed fairly well domestically and exceptionally in international sales. It may not be a knock out of the park, but it's a solid film that audiences will warm to. Even the backlash against Wolverine didn't hinder First Class from doing modest but solid numbers (once again prime for a higher-grossing sequel).

Even if this happens to Batman, it's a risk worth taking. Putting such a large character on hiatus for that long when he has so many great stories to tell would be a shame. The stories are there. You just need to hire the right people to adapt, direct and bring them to life. If it ends up being a good film, it will do well regardless of whether it is compared to Nolan's trilogy. Nolan didn't invent Batman. He did an excellent version of him, yes, but he doesn't have a monopoly on the character. Mainstream audiences can deal with different versions of the same character (even if studios think they can't).

I'm not saying they should rush into it, I'm not even saying they need to do a new series, but there should be a new Batman film sometime soon, more like 4 years away than 8. I'm more a fan of a smaller one-shot Batman film that doesn't need to be a franchise starter while they get Justice League sorted, but I doubt that would happen.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by Two-Face

Yes Nolans films are the best Batman films but I don't want to wait 10+years I think 5 to 6 years is enough. The way I see it, the movies are like comics and directors are the writers they put their visions on the charcater while respecting material either you like it or you don't.

Nolan did great job and it's some else's vision take on the character. I wouldn't want another director to continue what Nolan had done. Basically no sequel to TDKR. without Nolan and Co hence why WB right to reboot.

I tend to agree with that sentiment in general but...

You have to consider what the purpose of a reboot really is, other than the commercial reason (which is a moot point -- anything goes if you say "let's make it coz its profitable"). Now I'm absolutely fine with reinterpretations of classic stories, and especially comic-book heroes; the room of reinterpretation is vast there. Even Shakespeare retold stories in his plays. Whether or not it'll be original content or not is secondary. But what is important, I believe, is that your reinterpretation of the story is told when the overall impression of that character has been reinterpreted. Like in the 30s Kane & Finger's Batman killed but that was okay, that was the definitive Batman of that era (they changed it, of course, over the course of the years, but I'm using the kill-policy as an example not an absolute). When the Adam West show came up, that campy counter-cultural Batman spoke with the generation of that time. Same with Burton's more somber and gothic Batman. With Nolan's time the idea of Batman changed from being a simple brooding vigilante into a complete crime-fighter in a realistic world. The ol' fins are no longer "cool" and no longer credible to justify how amazing the character is.

When you're reinterpreting a character, you make that jump: you put in a definitive interpretation that not only speaks with the new generation, but what still justifies the nature of the character. By making a movie the director or writer sort of catalyses that.

But if you reboot within 5 years of the last definitive interpretation, all you get is a repeat. It wouldn't be completely original--not really--just changes here and there, maybe a different "tone" and a different "take" but what you really need is a different perception. Something that comes with the audience. OR at least with the context.

In 10 years if they remake Batman Begins and retell Bruce's origin story, no one will point out the plot-similarities between the two. But if they do it within 5 years or less, then you get TASM.

[Nave 'Torment']

Originally Posted by kewlmatto

I think fan backlashes are very overstated. If you were to believe the interwebs, TASM might as well have failed before it was released with people crying 'send rights back to Marvel'. 'Backlashes' like you describe don't really hinder a film in a huge way until well after the film is out (e.g. Superman Returns). But TASM grossed fairly well domestically and exceptionally in international sales. It may not be a knock out of the park, but it's a solid film that audiences will warm to. Even the backlash against Wolverine didn't hinder First Class from doing modest but solid numbers (once again prime for a higher-grossing sequel).

Even if this happens to Batman, it's a risk worth taking. Putting such a large character on hiatus for that long when he has so many great stories to tell would be a shame.

Well, again, if you talk about box-office returns all superhero films will be profitable. That's really a moot point. TASM has a good critical basis but the film is still an unnecessary rehash that moves like it was made by studio-executives ticking off the points from a market-research spread. It was far inferior and less original than what Sam Raimi's original brought to the character and the audiences. To me, that is more important than anything else.

And I understand why they remade Hulk or did First Class or why they're doing Wolverine -- the preceding films bombed so they needed to do better. That's fine by me. But when the franchise is a success you don't really have to do that from a critical stand-point. You've done great kid, let's give someone else a shot.

And that's where WB comes in and where I disagree with your point about keeping Batman in hiatus being such a bad idea. It isn't. There are other characters just spoiling to be used who need to be adapted from the DC library. Get that done. Savor the Batman movies that you've had and then go for another one. It was great when he and Supes were the only ones in the genre who could make an impression with the general audience, but that isn't the case anymore. People are giving superheroes their love, they're giving obscure heroes a chance. Utilize that. Make something else. Be original for the love of Will Eisner!

[SpiderBat]

Justice League aside, would anyone like to see M. night Shyamalan direct a Batman movie? I love the idea of the mystery he would bring to it.

He'd be the perfect person to tackle the first Killer Croc appearence.

[Nave 'Torment']

No. I get that he made Unbreakable but dude's a one-hit wonder. It's an interesting suggestion though -- he's pals with Alex Ross so the film might resemble something along the lines of Ross' work, but again I don't see him as original enough to pull a Batman movie. Definitely not based on the material he's done recently.

[Squaremaster316]

Originally Posted by Spider-Kurt!

Some anti-Nolan fans will say the reboot's first teaser trailer will be better than Nolan's trilogy.

Wonder how many Nolan fans will say the first trailer looks like crap and that Schumacher could pull it off better?

[Baramos]

If they can find the right balance between what I assume will be a lighter/more sci-fi/more action-based film while still managing to tell a compelling, dramatic story, it will be accepted.

Originally Posted by Spider-Bat

Justice League aside, would anyone like to see M. night Shyamalan direct a Batman movie? I love the idea of the mystery he would bring to it.

He'd be the perfect person to tackle the first Killer Croc appearence.

Gah, no, I wouldn't want to see that. I don't think Shyamalayn's going to be able to come back from his slew of terrible films. It should be very disheartening to any of his "fans" that they continually refer back to Unbreakable, a film from 12 years ago, as the last good one he made. Even Unbreakable is essentially about "the twist", and it's been quite obvious for a long time he is out of them.

I don't think we need look much further than The Last Airbender to see he is not the guy to have adapt anything, either.

EDIT: I suppose by "mystery" you mean the tone of something like, say, The Village? I guess he did a good job with atmosphere in that film, at least.

[theman]

i dont give a crap what the "fans" think. as far as im concerned, its the fans that made the nolan movie so popular and extremly overated to te point where i genuinly dislike the nolan films. i want the reboot to be something like the original films, do away with this drab realsm crap.

whats funny is that fanboys act a if batman wa never successful befor nolan. this fanatasy is completely biased and untrue. the first 3 batman films did tremendouly well and were the top moneymakers for there respective years. for some reason the nerds forgot about this because for some strange inexpliccable reason it becae popular to like nolan hate on all other movies.

[Squaremaster316]

I don't want ANYTHING to be like the "original" films, especially Returns and the Schumacher products.

[Fudgie]

Originally Posted by Squaremaster316

I don't want ANYTHING to be like the "original" films, especially Returns and the Schumacher products.

Darn right.