The Dark Knight Rises Batman 4?! Discuss!

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Well, Iron Man 2 was a film that was critically and financially successful so I wouldn't say that it shouldn't be bold. It's a movie that mainly fanboys nitpick but the GA actually really liked.

Watchmen was okay at best though to me.

 

[JAK®]

That has to be a mistake as you bolded Iron Man 2.

Iron Man 2 is worse than Iron Man and that's it's biggest problem.

 

[Norek]

Christopher Nolan made two things extremely clear today as the Produced By Conference got underway on the Sony lot in Culver City. He will definitely not be making a fourth Batman movie, and he believes that digital filmmaking is “devaluing of what we do as filmmakers.”

I think that sets the record straight.

More here (thanks to Dragon_316ca).

 

[Iceman]

I don't even want a 4th Nolan Batman movie. His trilogy will be definitive and great as a standalone piece. After that time for a totally new style Batman. Also I want to see Nolan on other stuff.

 

[KalMart]

I still prefer film to digital even when it's not as sharp.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Iron Man 2 was meh, then again I only liked the first one and didn't think it was anywhere near great.

 

[Blue Sugar]

And about film vs digital, it's all about context and quality over quantity. There is no right and wrong.

 

[KalMart]

And about film vs digital, it's all about context and quality over quantity. There is no right and wrong.

There's a lot of wrong in both with the wrong hands, really. But what Nolan refers to in terms of digital is merely the tip of a much bigger iceberg that many of us who work in both share misgivings about....things that aren't as evident to even producers, much less general moviegoers, that don't equate to alleged savings and/or convenience.

At the same time, he's gotten to use IMAX in feature films to a larger extent than anyone before him, so he's got a pretty high standard to meet.

 

[Sharkboy]

Iron man 2 was moderately successful critically. Personally, i think its a crock of s**t.

 

[Blue Sugar]

There's a lot of wrong in both with the wrong hands, really.

Well, that's exactly what I meant. There is no wrong or right by default.

 

[Sharkboy]

Spidey 1 is horribly dated. I found it tough to watch a year ago.

 

[KalMart]

Well, that's exactly what I meant. There is no wrong or right by default.

There are some wrong assumptions by default unique to digital, though...and that's very much at the core of what filmmakers feel digital devalues....with good reason. Basically, they're newer and more advanced tools, but they don't make the craft easier, less costly, or more efficient as some may assume they do.

And often, even in large productions, the choice to go digital is often motivated by an assumed savings in cost, with the quality difference assumed as negligible in comparison. That's what bothers a filmmaker the most....especially when there's no indication that film somehow makes the production infeasible. The quality difference, as perceived by the creators, should be paramount and should solely dictate the choice of one over the other unless it;s proven that they just can't afford shooting film. And even if they claim they can't, they're not saving as much as they think by going digital.

 

[shauner111]

Iron man 2 was moderately successful critically. Personally, i think its a crock of s**t.

Lol! Yeah whoever says it was great success commercially AND critically is exaggerating. It got an extremely mixed reaction. I think the common reaction was that "it wasn't as good as the first".

I thought it sucked even though Sam Rockwell was pretty funny. Horrible script, Downey and Paltrow were overdoing their performances. Felt like they were trying too hard to build a Batman/Robin type thing with Iron Man & War Machine. Rourke did an OK job but the character was kinda meh, felt like they cast him just cuz of his resurrection in movies at the time and worked a villain around him instead of the other way around. Might not be true, but thats my opinion. Too much Avengers crap instead of focusing on Stark and the threat.

Oh and Spidey 1 IS outdated. I had the same experience trying to watch it months ago. The 2nd has aged better.

I get the backlash on people not wanting another origin story for Spider-Man, but Raimis wasn't perfect. It was gonna happen eventually, might as well happen now and get it out of the way. With Batman there's no need for the origin because the previous film will have been a huge success and it'll be 10 to 11 years after Begins (like TASM) yet Begins was done perfectly.

Time to start the reboot with a 30-31 yr old Bruce/Bats who's got the suit and full cave and is a year or so well into his career.

 

[Alchemy Arcade]

Well with Nolan producing maybe he'll have enough sway over the story to reinforce the idea of not retelling the origin.

After all surely he knows that he already delivered the perfect origin.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Well with Nolan producing maybe he'll have enough sway over the story to reinforce the idea of not retelling the origin.

After all surely he knows that he already delivered the perfect origin.

But maybe the new writer and director want to retell the origin? Since Nolan is very much a storyteller in his films, surely he would appreciate someone else's desire to do the same.

I don't think it would be a sin for a reboot to reimagine the origin. Especially if it's going to be less grounded in realism and a more fantastical take on Batman.

 

[JackWhite]

But maybe the new writer and director want to retell the origin? Since Nolan is very much a storyteller in his films, surely he would appreciate someone else's desire to do the same.

I don't think it would be a sin for a reboot to reimagine the origin. Especially if it's going to be less grounded in realism and a more fantastical take on Batman.

Look at it this way: things can start to get stranger and stranger and even more "fantastical" in the reboot for Batman. That way you don't have to retell the origin. They could even have a line from Alfred saying "Looks like things aren't exactly the same when you began your journey, Master Bruce".

It's all about escalation, baby!

 

[Doc Holliday]

Look at it this way: things can start to get stranger and stranger and even more "fantastical" in the reboot for Batman. That way you don't have to retell the origin. They could even have a line from Alfred saying "Looks like things aren't exactly the same when you began your journey, Master Bruce".

It's all about escalation, baby!

So you're saying reboot, but within the same continuity? Doesn't that contradict the notion of a reboot?

I'm fine with a reboot skipping the origin and having Batman already doing his thing, if that's what the production team wants to do, but I don't think I'd like them to try and tie it to the Nolan films. I want to view them as their own trilogy, separate from other takes on Batman.

 

[KalMart]

Look at it this way: things can start to get stranger and stranger and even more "fantastical" in the reboot for Batman. That way you don't have to retell the origin. They could even have a line from Alfred saying "Looks like things aren't exactly the same when you began your journey, Master Bruce".

It's all about escalation, baby!

"...by the way, happy 44th birthday, Master Bruce....those new fantastical bath-oils make you look not a day over 30....."

 

[JackWhite]

So you're saying reboot, but within the same continuity? Doesn't that contradict the notion of a reboot?

I'm fine with a reboot skipping the origin and having Batman already doing his thing, if that's what the production team wants to do, but I don't think I'd like them to try and tie it to the Nolan films. I want to view them as their own trilogy, separate from other takes on Batman.

I'm actually half expecting the reboot to be in the context of the Nolanverse to be honest. WB isn't going to want to stray too far away from what Nolan has established.

But I'd rather a reboot in a fresh continuity with Batman already being fully formed. I really don't want to sit through another origins movie, especially since, IMO, Nolan nailed it.

 

[JackWhite]

"...by the way, happy 44th birthday, Master Bruce....those new fantastical bath-oils make you look not a day over 30....."

 

[KalMart]

I'm actually half expecting the reboot to be in the context of the Nolanverse to be honest. WB isn't going to want to stray too far away from what Nolan has established.

But I'd rather a reboot in a fresh continuity with Batman already being fully formed. I really don't want to sit through another origins movie, especially since, IMO, Nolan nailed it.

Why wouldn't they...if it's not Nolan actually making the movies? Heck...Nolan couldn't have done the things he did if he had to stick close to what Burton had established story- or style-wise.

 

[Art Damage]

I know I've mentioned before but they should completely go for a route ala the Arkham games, kind of balances a Nolan tone with more fantastical elements and could bring it members of the rogue gallery like Mr. Freeze or even a Man-Bat...

Iron man 2 was moderately successful critically. Personally, i think its a crock of s**t.

This.

 

[Supersaiyan66]

I think Robert Downey would make an excellent Joker when his Marvel contract is up.

 

[bkaya]

Im not sure about a forth one. Bane is technically the most dangerous Batman enemy and putting Freeze or Black Mask after that is pretty pointless.

If there will be a 4th movie however, it should not focus on realism factor anymore. That was Nolan's creation and its done for. Batman 4 should be "Batman Beyond" itself. With an Terry as new Batman and an aged Bruce as his helper. Maybe Blight as a villain. Futuristice theme can take the movie to a completely different stage and no one should bother comparing it with Nolan franchise. Theme also allows Avengers style extreme special effects, like Blight itself.

 

[AnneFan]

Trying to out epic this movie will be very difficult. I think the way to go after Rises is smaller, more detective based plotting.