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

[CConn]

THX gives no hint of imagination and cultural impact of Star Wars.

The movies may have a similar theme about rebelling against a tyranical system but they couldn't be any more different in many of other ways.

Most people would be bored to death or weirded out watching THX which is a bleak nightmarish art film.

Star Wars is an imaginative and fun space opera blockbuster with wookies, jedi and light sabers.

No one knew at the time George Lucas had such a vision with so much ground-breaking potential nesting in his brain.

No one.

OMG, do you watch movies with your eyes closed?

 

[Boom]

What are our thoughts of Drew Goddard directing a Batman movie?

 

[S. Grundy]

My issue with Brad Bird has nothing to do with what tone he could do...but with his actual talent as a live action director. Wasn't all that impressed with MI4. I found his directing work to be pretty average action movie stuff. I don't want to go from Chris Nolan to someone who MIGHT be talented enough to be good enough to follow up one of the best superhero franchises ever.

Well one thing Bird had over Nolan was he could do competent action scenes his first go around, it took Nolan until Inception to do decent action scenes.

I like the idea of Bird doing a Batman movie, he would give me hope that maybe it be all dour like the Nolan movies have been, and actually infuse a bit of fun. Because frankly, after The Avengers, I've become kinda bored of the whole grim n' gritty comic book films.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

OMG, do you watch movies with your eyes closed?

Nice rebuttal.

It really supports your argument.

 

[The Guard]

Well Serenity gave no indication that Avengers would become a cultural phenomenon and the 3rd highest grossing movie of all time.

No, but common sense might have...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

No, but common sense might have...

Exactly Serenity didn't give any indication that Avengers would be so successful but common sense might have.

I agree completely. t:

 

[Rodrigo90]

Bird would make an awesome Batman movie.

But you guys shouldn't get your expectations up, cause there is a good, solid chance he will be taken by Disney for a Marvel movie. Bird wouldn't jeopardize his relationship with Disney/Pixar. Disney is also ruthless enough to hold a knife over his head and say
¨You do Batman, and we do you¨

 

[HighFivingMF]

If Brad Bird has anything else to say about superheroes, he'll do Incredibles 2.

 

[Rodrigo90]

That's what I want to see from Bird!

 

[Daniel Thompson]

Again Marvel would be good too bor a Bird superhero flick. He could make a badass Captain America, X-Men, Avengers or FF film.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Well one thing Bird had over Nolan was he could do competent action scenes his first go around, it took Nolan until Inception to do decent action scenes.

I like the idea of Bird doing a Batman movie, he would give me hope that maybe it be all dour like the Nolan movies have been, and actually infuse a bit of fun. Because frankly, after The Avengers, I've become kinda bored of the whole grim n' gritty comic book films.

That's absurd. Batman isn't 'fun'. It's alright to feature a few humorous scenes but the last thing the Batman franchise needs is another Batman Forever or Batman & Robin just because you found The Avengers greatly entertaining. It took nearly a decade and a brilliant director to resurrect Batman after those events.

No thank you to a lighter and fun Batman movie.

After all the grim-n-gritty CBMs? What in bloody heavens are babbling about? Other than BB, TDK, Watchmen, Punisher '04 and V for Vendetta, you act as if the superhero genre is flooded with them. The fun and light-hearted CBMs outnumber the dark and gritty CBMs in a 5 to 1 ratio.

 

[Raiden]

Again Marvel would be good too bor a Bird superhero flick. He could make a badass Captain America, X-Men, Avengers or FF film.

I agree. I think with the number of CBM that Marvel still wants to make, they can definitely offer him a movie that he can really sinks his teeth into. I'd love to see him taking over Cap 2 & 3, because with SHIELD integrates into his movie, I see these two sequels not only maximizing Cap's appeal but can also give spotlights to agents like BW and Hawkeye. Of course, Bird can also make The Incredibles 2, and this is something I want to see.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

That's absurd. Batman isn't 'fun'. It's alright to feature a few humorous scenes but the last thing the Batman franchise needs is another Batman Forever or Batman & Robin just because you found The Avengers greatly entertaining. It took nearly a decade and a brilliant director to resurrect Batman after those events.

No thank you to a lighter and fun Batman movie.

After all the grim-n-gritty CBMs? What in bloody heavens are babbling about? Other than BB, TDK, Watchmen, Punisher '04 and V for Vendetta, you act as if the superhero genre is flooded with them. The fun and light-hearted CBMs outnumber the dark and gritty CBMs in a 5 to 1 ratio.

Batman is fun. Batman the man may be about as humorous as a bag full of crocodiles, but the comics by and large are fun. I mean the whole share of Neal Adams stories were fun, especially tales like Son of the Demon. Very Bond-esque. You're confining Batman to a very narrow scope.

 

[S. Grundy]

That's absurd. Batman isn't 'fun'. It's alright to feature a few humorous scenes but the last thing the Batman franchise needs is another Batman Forever or Batman & Robin just because you found The Avengers greatly entertaining. It took nearly a decade and a brilliant director to resurrect Batman after those events.

No thank you to a lighter and fun Batman movie.

After all the grim-n-gritty CBMs? What in bloody heavens are babbling about? Other than BB, TDK, Watchmen, Punisher '04 and V for Vendetta, you act as if the superhero genre is flooded with them. The fun and light-hearted CBMs outnumber the dark and gritty CBMs in a 5 to 1 ratio.

I'm not looking for another Batman & robin, but more Avengers than dour and depressing like Nolan has been doing.

It's bad wording on my part, it's more to do with people saying that whatever comic properties should be gritty. Hell take The Amazing Spider-Man, when they announced they said it would be more gritty like TDK.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Batman is fun. Batman the man may be about as humorous as a bag full of crocodiles, but the comics by and large are fun. I mean the whole share of Neal Adams stories were fun, especially tales like Son of the Demon. Very Bond-esque. You're confining Batman to a very narrow scope.

Sorry, no I'm not. The idea of 'fun' is currently being derived from what The Avengers was during it's run. And that's not Batman.

ALL comic books and graphic novels are fun. If they weren't, then why would we be fans of them? However, Batman is not a colorful character (per se) -- nor is The Punisher. So I'm not against a 'fun' Batman at all. After all, I adored the B:TAS and the Arkham games, but it varies to what level of 'fun' is suggested here.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm not looking for another Batman & robin, but more Avengers than dour and depressing like Nolan has been doing.

That's my point though. Batman isn't Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, Thor, etc. He's a damaged hero with sociopathic issues.

Depressing? I find Nolan's Batman films to be optimistic and inspirational.

It's bad wording on my part, it's more to do with people saying that whatever comic properties should be gritty. Hell take The Amazing Spider-Man, when they announced they said it would be more gritty like TDK.

See? Spiderman isn't dark and gritty, so why start now? Batman is Batman, Spiderman is not the Dark Knight and Batman isn't fun as The Avengers or Justice League Unlimited.

For me, a 'fun' Batman movie would be closer to the mythology of the character (which is still dark) with villains like Killer Croc, Poison Ivy and Mr. Freeze.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Sorry, no I'm not. The idea of 'fun' is currently being derived from what The Avengers was during it's run. And that's not Batman.

ALL comic books and graphic novels are fun. If they weren't, then why would we be fans of them? However, Batman is not a colorful character (per se) -- nor is The Punisher. So I'm not against a 'fun' Batman at all. After all, I adored the B:TAS and the Arkham games, but it varies to what level of 'fun' is suggested here.

You're wrong though. Your merely pointing out that Bruce Wayne is a sociopath with zero sense of humor, agreed (kind of, he's been 'lighter' or 'darker' depending on the writer, but basically a not happy dude). Alfred Pennyworth - dry sense of humor, good for one liners. Robin (pivotal character), Nightwing are both humorous, good banter. Could see a very Downey Jr. take on Dick Grayson as Nightwing for example. Have him being very quick witted, and very cheaky with the ladies. All that is very consistent with the comics. Joker, again, can be very humorous on top of being murderous, and fits with multiple takes on Batman. Then you really have a colorful cast of villains over all.

No Batman could have the 'tone' of Avengers. Batman simply wouldn't be the one responsible for that kind of dialogue, but you could certain have a comic bookish Batman take, and it's fits seemlessly with the comics. I mean Cap wasn't really funny in Avengers, and Batman has some parallels there, he's very by his own book and no one else's, and a bit moreso than Cap.

Remember, even 'Night of Owls', a very current Batman story that honestly has movie potential has a complete fun element to it. Owl ninjas? It's great, btw.

So I just completely disagree. There is too much Batman canon to consider to say that Brad Bird can't capture some of it, or that the style of Avengers is inappropriate. It's completely appropriate for Batman stories like Hush, Under the Red Hood, No Man's Land, Arkham Aslyum, or villains like Clayface, Mr. Freeze, or even Ra's Al Ghul would be given good treatment. I in fact think Nolan really only did a sub par Ra's thus far, I think he dumbed down many great aspects of the character. There's a ton of high concept fantasy and sci-fi that has always found a home with Batman, and it'd be nice to see a movie that does that.

I think you also have to realize that not having to necessarily redo the origin now, which is probably the case, they can make a more expansive universe not just pigeonholed into our own.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Frankly I'd like to see Batman R.I.P. get adapted. I'd modify Dr. Hurt, maybe make him Thomas Elliot or something, but still keep the Satan overtones. I love that story. Batman fights the Devil and the Devil blinks.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

You're wrong though. Your merely pointing out that Bruce Wayne is a sociopath with zero sense of humor, agreed (kind of, he's been 'lighter' or 'darker' depending on the writer, but basically a not happy dude). Alfred Pennyworth - dry sense of humor, good for one liners. Robin (pivotal character), Nightwing are both humorous, good banter. Could see a very Downey Jr. take on Dick Grayson as Nightwing for example. Have him being very quick witted, and very cheaky with the ladies. All that is very consistent with the comics. Joker, again, can be very humorous on top of being murderous, and fits with multiple takes on Batman. Then you really have a colorful cast of villains over all.

I don't disagree with most of this, however, you seem to conclude that the supporting cast will be similar to what RDJ was in TA, for example, when approaching Nightwing or Robin. These characters can still be cheeky, sarcastic and witty without following the same template.

No Batman could have the 'tone' of Avengers. Batman simply wouldn't be the one responsible for that kind of dialogue, but you could certain have a comic bookish Batman take, and it's fits seemlessly with the comics.

Yes and no. I don't mind Alfred and Nightwing or Robin having their own personas (lighter personalities) but these stories typically revolve around Bruce Wayne. In fact, the whole reason why Nolan excluded Robin in his film series was because Grayson would have disrupted a few elements of his story and the film's tone. He wanted his trilogy to focus solely on Batman.

In all honesty, I don't want an ensemble Batman movie featuring Batgirl and Nightwing/Robin because I believe it'll take from screen-time and set-pieces away from Batman.

The playful banter from Lucius and dry humor from Alfred is more than enough for me. Not to mention you've got Gordon in the mix as well.

Remember, even 'Night of Owls', a very current Batman story that honestly has movie potential has a complete fun element to it. Owl ninjas? It's great, btw.

Ehhhh... no thanks.

So I just completely disagree. There is too much Batman canon to consider to say that Brad Bird can't capture some of it, or that the style of Avengers is inappropriate. It's completely appropriate for Batman stories like Hush, Under the Red Hood, No Man's Land, Arkham Aslyum, or villains like Clayface, Mr. Freeze, or even Ra's Al Ghul would be given good treatment. I in fact think Nolan really only did a sub par Ra's thus far, I think he dumbed down many great aspects of the character. There's a ton of high concept fantasy and sci-fi that has always found a home with Batman, and it'd be nice to see a movie that does that.

And I disagree with your belief that a more light and fun tone is what the next Batman franchise needs just because Batman can go there, and The Avengers utilized it. In my opinion, it's a slippery slope to returning back to Bat-Nipples. Now, that doesn't mean the next franchise can't venture into the more fantastical realm. I just believe that these feats can be accomplished without changing the 'tone' too much.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Why do people always focus on the lack of ”fun”.

What many fans want is IMAGINATION.

More specifically we want DARK and IMAGINATIVE.

”Fun” is the wrong word.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Why do people always focus on the lack of ”fun”.

What many fans want is IMAGINATION.

More specifically we want DARK and IMAGINATIVE.

”Fun” is the wrong word.

I'm down with a more fantastical and 'imaginative' Dark Knight story. Nolan tackled the gritty and philosophical/socio-political format for about seven years (and the films were fantastic -- some of the greatest CBMs ever made). I think it's time for Batman to return back to the 'supernatural' elements that the Burton movies, Arkham games and the animated series are currently known for.

 

[Rocketman]

Here's my line of thinking.

I really liked how Nolan used villains that were never used before in Batman Begins. In the 1989-1997 era, we had Joker, Catwoman, Penguin, Two-Face, Riddler, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, and Bane.

Then Nolan acknowledged what was already used and gave us something different: Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul, Mr. Zsasz, and Carmine Falcone. Once it was established that this was clearly a NEW direction, Nolan had free rein to return to old villains from the old era: Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, and Bane.

So I say: Follow that pattern. With the next reboot, bring in villains that have NEVER been used before, and then once the first movie is done, go back to the villains that were used before. Something like this:

First Movie:
- Black Mask
- Ventriloquist
- Hugo Strange

Second Movie:
- Riddler
- Penguin

And don't be afraid to introduce new supporting characters in addition to the new villains:

Leslie Thompkins
Harvey Bullock
Rene Montoya
Jeremiah Arkham

And MOST IMPORTANTLY, don't be afraid to have a big phenomenal cast like Nolan's ensembles. I'm talking big names, like the way Nolan drew in Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, etc. It's one thing to have a great Batman movie, but the thing that makes these movies even more great and epic is the amazing cast that is around Batman. These movies are events, moreso than any franchise I can name, and one reason is the casts they always pull together. And don't be afraid to go big, while still going small. I'm talking:

Batman: Jon Hamm or Josh Brolin
Alfred: Timothy Dalton
Hugo Strange: Robin Williams
Ventriloquist: Bill Murray
Jeremiah Arkham: Jeff Goldblum
Leslie Thompkins:Meryl Streep
Jim Gordon: William H. Macy

I'd kill for a Batman movie with Robin Williams and Bill Murray teaming up as villains, with Meryl Streep and Jeff Goldblum in the same cast. That's exactly along the same lines as the combined forces of Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman together.

 

[DaveMoral]

I don't disagree with most of this, however, you seem to conclude that the supporting cast will be similar to what RDJ was in TA, for example, when approaching Nightwing or Robin. These characters can still be cheeky, sarcastic and witty without following the same template.



Yes and no. I don't mind Alfred and Nightwing or Robin having their own personas (lighter personalities) but these stories typically revolve around Bruce Wayne. In fact, the whole reason why Nolan excluded Robin in his film series was because Grayson would have disrupted a few elements of his story and the film's tone. He wanted his trilogy to focus solely on Batman.

In all honesty, I don't want an ensemble Batman movie featuring Batgirl and Nightwing/Robin because I believe it'll take from screen-time and set-pieces away from Batman.

The playful banter from Lucius and dry humor from Alfred is more than enough for me. Not to mention you've got Gordon in the mix as well.



Ehhhh... no thanks.



And I disagree with your belief that a more light and fun tone is what the next Batman franchise needs just because Batman can go there, and The Avengers utilized it. In my opinion, it's a slippery slope to returning back to Bat-Nipples. Now, that doesn't mean the next franchise can't venture into the more fantastical realm. I just believe that these feats can be accomplished without changing the 'tone' too much.

I think the fact that people are using The Avengers as an example of honing closer to comic roots and feel is distracting you and conjuring images of B&R and Adam West instead of something closer to a live action marriage of Arkham City and BTAS. And you don't see the latter because you lack faith in writers and directors doing Batman's supporting characters right IMO. Grayson shouldn't take away from Bruce because he is, in a very real way, an extension of Bruce. He repeesents both what Bruce lost and what he became. He also puts Bruce in a new role, having to become mentor and father. There's no reason Dick has to take away from Bruce at all. It's more likely that, with the wild success of Nolan's approach, when they do reboot they will find writers and directors that will know how to handle the charscter and how he fits into the Batman world and story. Batman is going to be the one cgaracter that WB wants to safeguard for a long time. If Man of Steel does well they might work to safeguard him too. But Batman is one where they are not going to make the same mistakes.

 

[Naked Shia]

I can't believe some people are still saying Batman should have a sense of humor. When Bill Finger wrote Detective Comics and Batman, the dark knight was cracking jokes ALL THE TIME.

 

[DaveMoral]

I can't believe some people are still saying Batman should have a sense of humor. When Bill Finger wrote Detective Comics and Batman, the dark knight was cracking jokes ALL THE TIME.

I can't believe reading comprehension is so low that people believe this is what's being said.