After Nolan's BATMAN trilogy... - Part 1

[The Guard]

I never got the hate for IRON MAN 2, but then I also never got the uber-love for IRON MAN, which I really enjoyed, but...

IRON MAN 2's main weakness is an underdeveloped villain, which, if we're honest about, was also IRON MAN's main weakness.

 

[shauner111]

I've always enjoyed the first Iron Man. Jeff Bridges was very good in his role. Unlike Mickey Rourke (could just be that i get bored with Rourke alltogether). But i wouldn't say that i LOVED the movie either.

Iron Man 2 had a weak villain yes but Tony and Pepper were extremely annoying to me too. I think the only thing that entertained me when i saw it in the cinema was Sam Rockwell.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Nah, Bridges was perfectly developed. He was behind the scenes, but you saw the evolution. However, Rourke gets...that awful scream, one fight with iron man, and telling Hammer his software was "sheit." Then he dies in a flash...lol

 

[Anno_Domini]

The same can be applied to TDKR as well. Therefore, that argument is not a compelling one, lol

Can it really, though?

Iron Man - 93% all critics, 91% top critics with a 91% fan rating

Iron Man 2 - 75% all critics, 65% top critics with a 80% fan rating


The Dark Knight - 94% all critics, 91% top critics with a 96% fan rating

The Dark Knight Rises - 87% all critics, 76% top critics with a 92% fan rating


Between these two pairings, Iron Man 2 shows itself to have been greatly lowered with rating from all spectrums of either critics or just the fans/audience. TDKR looks very strong from those numbers. Let alone, much acknowledgement in top ten lists for 2012 including AFI. The sequel of Iron Man did not.

 

[TheGuy]

Nah, Bridges was perfectly developed. He was behind the scenes, but you saw the evolution. However, Rourke gets...that awful scream, one fight with iron man, and telling Hammer his software was "sheit." Then he dies in a flash...lol

Yes. What "developing" could the script possibly add to Bridges'?

 

[Ultimatehero]

What about a take on Batman No Man's Land? Including the whole rogues gallery.

 

[Rodrigo90]

We've already had it to some degree with TDKR.

There's no point in trying to make this first movie as big as you can possibly hope to make it. If you go back to basics, then you have more of a chance to get something better. You don't want to go all out and burn up at the beginning.

This first movie shouldn't try to outdo TDK or TDKR...maybe BB tho

 

[Jordacar]

What about a take on Batman No Man's Land? Including the whole rogues gallery.

No Man's Land is like five movies worth of material. Or a full TV season.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It seems if it did that we'd only get "more of the same." Another solo film with Joker or another solo film with Riddler. If they are going to restart and not continue, I just feel it HAS TO complete change the playing field by going NO MAN'S LAND, HAUNTED KNIGHT, or ARKHAM ASYLUM on us. Using many villains to tell a really intriguing story. We've already done the basics to death basically.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But we know what happens when we have too many villains.

 

[luca_frontino]

I'd like to see a martial arts epic with Batman against King Snake, Lady Shiva, the Silver Monkey and the entire Brotherood of the Fist.

 

[Ultimatehero]

That, no offense, theory comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. It all comes down to the writing. You can have as many villains or characters you want and still have a very successful film. Look at all these movies with a HUGE ensemble, you don't have people going "that won't work- it has too many characters!" Trust me, as a screenwriter out here in the industry, it all comes down to the writing.

Villains weren't the problems with Forever, or & Robin, or Spider-Man 3. All of those had problems that had nothing to do with the villains. It's a beyond easy scapegoat to use for just lousy writing.

It all comes down to the writing and how something is presented. Nothing more nothing less. There is no real "too many villains" rule, just lousy writing. It's just a scapegoat.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But we get writers who have no clue on how to do it right. Maybe they can take cues from The Avengers, only with villains.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It all comes down to writing. The problem basically is too many subplots, not too many villains. If you look at all of these comics it's all kept simple and going in one direction. There's no reason a film can't do similarly and achieve. Even cartoon two-parters get this right. And with the time Batman has been in the public, these guys don't need a set-up since we already know all about them which makes it very easy. If it's streamline like these comics are, you don't run into difficulties.

 

[Donnie Darko]

In regards to Iron Man 2... calling something the worst Marvel Studios movie is like calling something the worst episode of Firefly. You're insulting something for just being "good" instead of mind-blowingly awesome.

 

[Ultimatehero]

No Man's Land is like five movies worth of material. Or a full TV season.

Well, I don't mean a direct adaptation. I mean in the number of villains involved, HAUNTED KNIGHT and ARKHAM ASYLUM are also examples of this. Going for a full journey through the rogues gallery like the stories do.

 

[The Guard]

That, no offense, theory comes from people who don't know what they're talking about. It all comes down to the writing. You can have as many villains or characters you want and still have a very successful film. Look at all these movies with a HUGE ensemble, you don't have people going "that won't work- it has too many characters!" Trust me, as a screenwriter out here in the industry, it all comes down to the writing

This.

 

[Rorschach2012]

I dont think we HAVE to see multiple vilains in the next one. But its worked with BB, TDK, and TDKR.

I want to see Mr Freeze, Clayface and the origin of Dick Grayson in the next one

 

[shauner111]

Don't even try to blow it up. You can't get bigger than Rises in scope. Do the opposite. Make an extremely claustrophobic movie. Bats trapped in Arkham for the majority of it. The beginning and end would be when we see the man in Wayne Manor/the Batcave, and early on in the movie we would see the public persona for a bit.

Multiple villains is a good way to do something different, even if it's a small role for this rogue or that rogue. Cameos too. Center it around 1 or 2 main villains but show the audience that this world is well underway. 2 or 3 years into Batman's career and he's already faced Joker, Two-Face and Scarecrow and thrown them in Arkham. Maybe he's tangled with a couple lesser known villains as well, but that point has to be made..that it's an established universe when the movie starts. Riddler is the perfect villain for this and for WB to market. Strange as villain number 2 (inside Arkham) is also a good idea.

 

[metaphysician]

I don't know, I think if you want "different", the best way to go would be a strongly detective-oriented plot. Pick a suitable villain, like the Riddler, and make the plot a mystery. Connect the action sequences with scenes of sleuthing in various forms, and use the slowly unfurling investigation as a way to characterize the villain.

 

[Anno_Domini]

In regards to Iron Man 2... calling something the worst Marvel Studios movie is like calling something the worst episode of Firefly. You're insulting something for just being "good" instead of mind-blowingly awesome.

That's not really true, imo.

Mind-blowingly awesome only fits with The Avengers and Iron Man.

Then you have good that includes Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

Then you have very mediocre/okay which goes with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I don't know, I think if you want "different", the best way to go would be a strongly detective-oriented plot. Pick a suitable villain, like the Riddler, and make the plot a mystery. Connect the action sequences with scenes of sleuthing in various forms, and use the slowly unfurling investigation as a way to characterize the villain.

That's another way to do it differently, but personally would gravitate more towards the sprawling journeys through the rogues gallery like the titles I listed. That would make it different from every superhero film out there. Or detective -- LONG HALLOWEEN.

--------

I'd say everything is subjective.

To me mind blowing awesome is Captain America and Avengers
Good is The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Iron Man
Mediocre/ Okay is Iron Man 2 (also mediocre/okay compared to other comic films as well)

 

[Rorschach2012]

Off topic but I thought Iron Man 2 Captain America and TIH were the weakest films. I enjoyed Captain America the least. Iron Man and Thor were good, while The Avengers to me was the only mindblowingly awesome one

 

[shauner111]

That's not really true, imo.

Mind-blowingly awesome only fits with The Avengers and Iron Man.

Then you have good that includes Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger.

Then you have very mediocre/okay which goes with The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2.

I would put Iron Man, Thor and Avengers (only on first viewing) as good. Nothing mindblowing there.

Avengers on further viewings would be just mediocre/okay for me. Incredible Hulk and Cap rotate from mediocre to just plain horrible. Iron man 2 falls in the same category.

 

[Anno_Domini]

While The Avengers has certainly come down a bit in my eyes(now I view Avengers and The Dark Knight tied as my 2nd favorite CBM), I think Avengers and Iron Man are still the films to be the shining examples of the MCU while Captain America and Thor are just as great, but something makes those two films feel very "generic" and I hope for more with The Winter Soldier and The Dark World. And The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2...they both fell in their own individual ways: TIH could've been something great but so much stuff was taken out of the theatrical cut which I don't blame Norton to being pissed and disappointed about and Iron Man 2 tried to shove in elements of the "bigger picture" of the MCU without trying to give us just a good and clean sequel to Iron Man.