Can Batman escape the "Third Act Curse"?

[zeptron]

It was mostly due to studio interference that third comic movies such as SM3 and X3 weren't on par with their predecessors. As long as WB stays out of Nolan's way I think he'll deliver a solid third film.

For instance if he doesn't want the movie in 3D, WB should respect his wishes and not force it upon him. This type of thing could cause him to bail(no pun intended) and we get some hack/yes man who screws everything up.

[Chris Wallace]

I guess the appropriate question should then be, will WB stay out of his way? Studios tend to think they know best when it comes to their cash cow. And they have interfered with Batman before.

[LightningFlash]

I don't think WB has any reason to do such though.

Batman has been their cash cow yes, but so are Nolan's films(or at least recently, and especially with Inception).

[Kurt Wagner]

Originally Posted by Squidboy

I think it'd be very hard to top a movie starring the Joker in general, but in my possibly unpopular opinion, Batman Returns was a much more enjoyable film than Burton's Batman, so I have faith that Nolan could blow The Dark Knight out of the water. Even if he uses Killer Croc, if he sticks to his strict standards in film-making, he may just break the curse.

A lot of people feel this to be the case and cite Returns as a better film overall.

[Kurt Wagner]

WB will probably stay out of his way... Harry Potter is almost over and what other big franchise does WB have going for it other than Batman... They already F-ed up once in the 90's and I think they definitely learned their lesson with that... So I really doubt WB will do anything to screw up Nolan's vision.

Unless some studio exec is fired and some moron takes their place, we shouldn't have much to worry about.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kurt Wagner

A lot of people feel this to be the case and cite Returns as a better film overall.

I hated Returns.

[LightningFlash]

Originally Posted by Chris Wallace

I hated Returns.

I can't say I've agreed with you often, if any, but I agree with you on this one.

I love '89 Batman, but that's really it.

Didn't like BR, BF, and of course B&R.

[Happy Jack]

Returns seems to be a love it or hate it sort of thing.

[RustyCage]

I don't get the hate for Returns, not one bit. I always thought it was a lot less boring than '89 (much as I love it), although it's also slightly more camp I guess. But certainly not enough to put me off from it like with Forever and B+R.

[El Payaso]

The narrative of Returns is not very good for me. But the characters make the movie.

[Happy Jack]

I think it's a better, more focused film than its' predecessor. But it can also be very challenging.

[LightningFlash]

I was never a fan of it from the beginning myself. I'm not a huge fan of either Penguin or Catwoman(although I want to see Penguin in a movie as a crime boss, and not a deformed half penguin/half human character, and have him lead a freak gang). Although I like the closed-in scenery in Batman Returns, I think Batman is the overall better movie. It deals more with the rivalry of Joker and Batman than how BR portrayed the rivalry between Penguin and Batman, imo.

Christoper Walken was great in BR though. I loved his death scene.

[Two-Face]

Returns is pure Tim Burton movie not a Batman movie but nevertheless I like his movie.
Batman 89 is more of a Batman movie.

[LightningFlash]

Originally Posted by Two-Face

Returns is pure Tim Burton movie not a Batman movie but nevertheless I like his movie.
Batman 89 is more of a Batman movie.

I never thought of it like that, but it does make sense. BR has the essence of every single Tim Burton film, as '89 Batman did not. It was a unique Burton film.

[ALP]

How is BR NOT a Batman film? It's a Burton film, no doubt, but it is also a Batman film. Never agreed with the whole "BR is not a Batman movie" thing some of you like to throw around. Batman can be portrayed in a billion different ways, BR was but one of them.

That's as stupid as saying "Arkahm Asylum is not a Batman comic, it's a Dave McKean artbook"

[Two-Face]

Originally Posted by ALP

How is BR NOT a Batman film? It's a Burton film, no doubt, but it is also a Batman film. Never agreed with the whole "BR is not a Batman movie" thing some of you like to throw around. Batman can be portrayed in a billion different ways, BR was but one of them.

That's as stupid as saying "Arkahm Asylum is not a Batman comic, it's a Dave McKean artbook"

I don't think what I said was stupid BR is a Tim Burton signature that's not a bad thing. I love his other films.

[LightningFlash]

Originally Posted by ALP

How is BR NOT a Batman film? It's a Burton film, no doubt, but it is also a Batman film. Never agreed with the whole "BR is not a Batman movie" thing some of you like to throw around. Batman can be portrayed in a billion different ways, BR was but one of them.

That's as stupid as saying "Arkahm Asylum is not a Batman comic, it's a Dave McKean artbook"

The atmosphere; BR has a much more gothic tone as to Burton's other films. '89 Batman just felt like a Batman story from the comics, without the over-the-top goth themes.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by Two-Face

I don't think what I said was stupid BR is a Tim Burton signature that's not a bad thing. I love his other films.

I agree it is a Tim Burton signature. It's when someone tries to argue it is "not a Batman film" that is just wrong.

Originally Posted by LightningFlash

The atmosphere; BR has a much more gothic tone as to Burton's other films. '89 Batman just felt like a Batman story from the comics, without the over-the-top goth themes.

Just as I used in my example...

Arkham Asylum has a much more gothic tone like McKean's other work. So is it not a Batman comic?

As I said, there are many many ways to interpret Batman. He can be gothic, lighthearted, dark, scary, campy, or anywhere in between. Try reading Batman: Nosferatu, it's only about 1000x more gothic than anything in Batman Returns.

[LightningFlash]

You should really read between the lines.

I'm not saying it's NOT a Batman film; I'm saying there is just a difference between how Batman Returns feels and how Batman feels.

There is no reasoning with your example either.

[ALP]

I get what you're saying, I originally was not talking to you...until you quoted me. My whole thing is towards those who say Returns is not a Batman film, and there have been those who say that. Otherwise I agree there is a difference between the feel and atmosphere, that is indisputable.

Oh and the example makes sense if you are familiar with McKean. Same for the Nosferatu example if you have read it.

[RustyCage]

I don't see what's wrong with Tim Burton having his own take on Batman based on his preferred style. I thought Tim managed to be personal while still being appropriate with Returns. It was artful, and while it was unique for Batman, that didn't make it somehow 'not Batman'.

Batman is a very versatile series, even with Burton aside, that should be thoroughly obvious.

Also, Lightning, I don't see why 'rivalry' as you described it has to be involved for it to be a good story. The villains can be interesting without being the ultimate elemental opposite of Batman. And Batman can still be compelling when he's just being Batman rather than necessarily competing with his greatest enemy. By your implied standards, the Joker is basically the only villain worth putting in a film, and I think that's an utter waste of loads of great story material.

[LightningFlash]

I think it very well needs to be involved. Look at Iron Man 2; it was sloppy as how Iron Man and Whiplash's evolving storyline was. There wasn't any, or didn't feel like, conflict. That's what I felt about Batman and Penguin.

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

I don't see what's wrong with Tim Burton having his own take on Batman based on his preferred style. I thought Tim managed to be personal while still being appropriate with Returns. It was artful, and while it was unique for Batman, that didn't make it somehow 'not Batman'.

Batman is a very versatile series, even with Burton aside, that should be thoroughly obvious.

Also, Lightning, I don't see why 'rivalry' as you described it has to be involved for it to be a good story. The villains can be interesting without being the ultimate elemental opposite of Batman. And Batman can still be compelling when he's just being Batman rather than necessarily competing with his greatest enemy. By your implied standards, the Joker is basically the only villain worth putting in a film, and I think that's an utter waste of loads of great story material.

I think each villain has his/her own purpose and contribution to the story, whether it's a physical challenge, (Bane) a mental one, (Joker) an intellectual one, (Riddler) an emotional one, (Catwoman) or a moral challenge (Two Face). I personally have yet to understand what Oswald brings to the table, but that's just me.

[LightningFlash]

Well, he brings a good amount to the table...he was vice president for eight years....

[Chris Wallace]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

The narrative of Returns is not very good for me. But the characters make the movie.

I thought the characters AND the story were terrible. The high point for me was Michelle's performance, and even that couldn't overpower my hatred for her dialogue and characterization.