The Dark Knight Rises Fighting Studio Corruption

[Doc Samson]

The real issue with Spiderman 3 was Raimi's distaste for Venom as a villain. He didn't grow up with the character, so he had no affinity towards him, plus he & Tobey had wanted to do Sandman as soon as possible. From a marketing standpoint, I think Sony was right to persuade Sam to include Venom, because that's who most fans had been clamoring for since the franchise started. Most kids didn't grow up with Sandman, so they felt the same way towards him that Raimi felt towards Venom. It would have been so easy for Raimi to just base the movie on Venom and let it go. Instead, he decided to just throw him in, in such a ham-fisted way, that it was really unnecessary to the story. I dont think BB using multiple bad guys had anything to do with Sony wanting to "one up" them or anything of that nature, it just made sense to have Venom in there, and Raimi should have just relented and made the movie about Venom completely, or reduce Sandman's role to allow more time.

Whatever the case, BB & TDK both juggled multiple villains (two rogues gallery villains & one mobster) so doing it again shouldn't be a problem, & I can't see Nolan making anything if his total heart and commitment isn't there. This is a man who shoots every single scene personally, unlike most directors, so it's safe to say he probably won't return if he somehow feels he isn't being given the same amount of control he had on the previous entries

 

[zenith16]

I don't know Doc Samson I managed to get nearly ever scrap of video on Raimi that aired on tv and writen while he was doing doing spidey 3 and he seemed happy to do venom. I put alot of it out when I was a reporter/moderator for x-Men fansite Mutatis Mutandis

Video link: from SDCC: Topher Grace is Venom. Finally up.

http://mutanthigh.com/smf/index.php?topic=1326.0

and in case that does work try this
http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_2568.aspx



Tobey MacGuire and Topher Grace talk about Venom in Spider-Man 3
Watch the Spider-Man 3 special on SPACE May 3
http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_3813.aspx

Spider-Man 3 videos

http://mutanthigh.com/smf/index.php?topic=2764.0

Swingin'Into Spider-Man3!The Spiderman Special I promissed:Last Video interviews
http://mutanthigh.com/smf/index.php?topic=2829.0


in case that doesn't work use this

http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_3896.aspx


He was happy to add venom. he just wanted to finish up the harry story line and bring sand man and people kept going on saying we want venom and he happily added him.
seriously it was too early for venom. that guy didn't come in until after the sinister six came and were beaten. I argued that on forums and chat's but some people are too nuts to listen.

kinda like i'm see this I must be against the adding of cat woman and Robin, Bat girl, penguin thing. only in opposite ways. But what ever.

 

[Nepenthes]

I think if anything the studio will be pushing for some hot babes in the cast.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

I think if anything the studio will be pushing for some hot babes in the cast.

Just not some ''i'm an actress but i cant act'' like Megan Fox...with the acting greats on the cast she(or someone like her)would stick out like a sour thumb.

 

[chaseter]

I think if anything the studio will be pushing for some hot babes in the cast.

HAHA just they did for SM2 and SM3 with Raimi's lovely upshirt shot as Doc Ock climbs over the crowd

 

[chaseter]

no i'm not wrong he jump ship cause he couldn't wait to do super man once the job was offered to him and left in the middle of finishing his stuff to paper.
he was that enthralled by doing superman cause that's what he really wanted to do.

Superman Returns star Brandon Routh and director Bryan Singer explain why the man of steel lives on.
http://www.spacecast.com/videoplayer_2335.aspx

the way he talks here says it all.


fox and singer already set the date for X3 long be for they had the script set unfortunately. He was so happy when he got superman he happy skipped off to it. when they were in production of writing it all up for X3 . and any way those weren't even really X-Men movies, those wolverine movies . so much so it funny he(wolverine) has one of his own titled movies when he was forced down peoples throtes that wanted to see the organization of heroes rather then too much focus on one character. but that's a thing for another time this is about the bat.

The title of this thread isn't Director corruption...it is Studio corruption and Fox is corrupted. Fox and Singer set a date and Singer left. Now, what would be the responsible thing to do to create a quality movie? Rush things to meet the original date, or delay things a year to make a great movie

 

[StorminNorman]

What about with Harry Potter OOTP butchered the source material.

I blame a piss poor director there.

WB has a good reputation as far as giving their talented directors pretty good reign. If WB was going to be too overbearing- TDK would be a lot different. TDK is a huge risk. If WB was going to be a pain - Watchmen would not be being made.

WB is safe here.

 

[wrhssaxensemble]

How can you even compare the two? Harvey Dent was arguably the backbone of the story. He was probably developed more than any other character in the movie. Eddie Brock got maybe five minutes of back story. The only people whining about Two-Face only being in the movie for a half hour are people just looking for stuff to nitpick. There were basically two options here. Either have Two-Face show up a half hour into the movie with practically no character development, or make the movie a half hour longer. While I wouldn't have minded the second option, it's just not realistic. The first option would have been lame. I'm personally fine with the amount of time Two-Face got. Anything more would have made the movie too busy.

Actually i believe there was a 3rd option as well... somehow end with two-face on the run instead of "dead" (without getting into a debate about whether the "" are warranted). But I agree, it was much better how they developed him... it was great too because his fall from Harvey really made you sympathize with him which is of course just the opposite of how the film was designed to make you feel about originless joker

 

[wrhssaxensemble]

Just not some ''i'm an actress but i cant act'' like Megan Fox...with the acting greats on the cast she(or someone like her)would stick out like a sour thumb.

you mean like Katie Holmes but hot?

 

[spideymouse]

you mean like Katie Holmes but hot?

no... Kargo Warrior also said "acting greats." neither term describes Holmes.

 

[spideymouse]

Back in 2005, Nolan said:

Is everything in Hollywood a compromise?

Nolan: "Ultimately, whoever is financing the film owns that film and has ultimate control, and that's the reality of the nature of collective filmmaking. I'm very fortunate in my career so far as I haven't yet had a sort of nightmarish compromise experience in making a film—I've been able to get the version I think is best on screen. I've been very fortunate with the people I've worked with, and some of that's luck, because you don't always get to pick and choose. Beyond that, I'd say I've been honest with people, and that allows them to give me their honest opinion earlier on [in the process] so I haven't yet boxed myself into a corner. So, I don't have massive regrets."

Is Warner Bros. the right philosophical fit for you creatively?

Nolan: "Certainly, I've done two very fulfilling, creative projects with them, but you can always tell when you go in, and you tell them about the film you're making and if you're honest with them—and you have to be as honest as possible—you get a sense of whether they see the same film as you do, and they did and very strongly. These guys were totally, genuinely on board. I know it sounds like BS but they really got the movie. I think we had a huge advantage in that the 1989 Batman film that Tim Burton did, and that tone has defined comic book movies. Because we're doing a Batman film, something new, fresh and different, they were looking for a re-invention. No one's done one of these movies in years—the closest to it, for me, is probably the 1978 Superman, [Richard] Donner's film, which had locations and shooting in New York. It had this great cast, and it treated its subject with a real degree of respect, not selling it short as just a comic book movie. To me, that's what comic books are—it sparks your imagination with words, pictures, colors, light and shape. Just as when you adapt a novel, you do not consider the superficial form of the novel, you push to imagine the cinematic equivalent. Why should comic books be any different?"

 

[wrhssaxensemble]

no... Kargo Warrior also said "acting greats." neither term describes Holmes.

I was referring to his mention of how "actress who can't act like Megan Fox" wouldn't fit in, and wondering if he would fit Holmes within that category... I certainly would

 

[spideymouse]

I was referring to his mention of how "actress who can't act like Megan Fox" wouldn't fit in, and wondering if he would fit Holmes within that category... I certainly would

oh haha, brilliant. looks like we're on the same page then.

 

[mclay18]

What about with Harry Potter OOTP butchered the source material.

Well, ever since Columbus jumped ship after the second film, the WB has given the producers and subsequent directors free reign over the production as far as I can tell. Plus, regardless of how well/badly the writer mucks up the source material for the HP films, the fans are going to come out in droves to see the next installment no matter what. Seriously, if you want to blame the butchering of source material, blame the writer and director.

DC (and Marvel) property is a whole different ballgame -- it doesn't have a solid lineup of novels to adapt into films. Good screenwriters and directors are especially required to make the latter a success. Since the stunning success of TDK (and the revitalization of the Batman franchise with BB), WB would be downright insane to interfere with Nolan for the third film... should he ever decide to make one. Just let him relax after the press for TDK, do another film and when he feels like it, have him and Goyer work on the third film.

If Nolan isn't coming back to do another film, the WB had better look for another good director and writer for the third flick... with either Nolan approving the new team or taking a producing role.

 

[Nepenthes]

WB might look at the success of TDK and decide that Nolan can have much more money for Batman3. He can use that cash to get the high-calibre actors he wants to make the experience more enjoyable. He can go to more far off locations. Buy some new vests. Anything to make the doing the movie more attractive to him.

 

[Keymaker]

They can make some suggestions and hopefully Nolan will find a way to make it all cool and badass as usual t:

 

[David Rice]

Warner Bros will not bother Nolan at all. They left him alone for BB and TDK and made a killing. I don't think they want to jeopardize their relationship with their moneymaker.

I agree.

Same was said for Raimi

True, but Nolan is not Raimi and this is DC not Marvel. IMO at this point DC has never made a bad comic book film, Marvel has made many bad films.

 

[David Rice]

I'm sorry X-men 3 didn't suffer from this, it suffered from Brian singer leaving cause he wanted to do super man cause he read that as kid (compaird to X-men which he didn't) and wanted to make it. It was cause he jumped ship thing's went wrong. and the fact that it was too hard to make both cause the schedule of both movies conflicted it's the other way around there.


Spider man 3 problem was cause sony wanted to out do the whole super villains thing happen with batman begins. WB was grandstanding with two villains and sony wanted three to push and show they can compete. every one here use's the whole venom thing and yet after seeing the movie Nolan made of Harvey dent and seeing other talks about what happened to venom and basically the same thing already happened with out fans pushing for dent to show up.

LOL. This kind of talk is unjustified now. Two face got the same raw deal with out what others like to bring up about venom often. And there other circumstances besides fan want there for Spider man 3. though I was arguing with/against those venom fans originally that venom can show up in the movies in after the sinister six are made befor they put him in period. but they jus had to put him in 3 blech.

Nah the Spider man 3 movie got messed up cause they (the Studio producers) wanted to out do "Bat man begins" with their two villains so they added three villains in spidey 3 to try and top bat man. it wasn't just venom fan b.s. Unfortunately. Any way seeing what happened in the Dark night movie with two face. I really think the venom thing has become moot point now.

Thanks guys for holding that grudge that it showed up in dark knight to bite you again with out fans pushing it. grudges ain't good. sheesh. you sent Harvey to his doom with it. Damn it.
And leave Avi Arad alone he had nothing to do with the screw up's he was ticked after he saw what happened in the 3rd movies of both which is why marvel Studios was built and they did iron man. They followed frank miller's idea of going independent

Sin City' Not A Hollywood Film
Dan Rather Uncovers Secrets Of How This Blockbuster Movie Was Made

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/12/60II/main687601.shtml
after fox screwed up.

marvel saw this and went independent after wards. since studios keep screwing them over.

Any way marvel is already in the process of correcting Spider man 3 and X3 they said in earlier reports that They'll use their Sequels and Spin offs to correct their mistakes. both those third movies I have it on video of those connected to films. so they'll do it. Too many people are holding them too it.

You can't even compare Dent and Venom. As another poster said Dent was the backbone of the story and most of all he was played by a GOOD actor.

The problem with FIXING thier mistakes is that everyone will remember no matter what. When you make one bad film in a trilogy everyone forgets the first two films that where great.

 

[Charlie The Red]

I don't think that comparing Harvey Dent with the Venom character is really fair when you consider that each character had a separate role for their respective films. With Venom, you essentially had an extra villain that was there to please the fans and create a third act, while with Two-Face you had a character with a story arc that carries throughout the entirety of the film. Two-Face's character had much more purpose than Venom's.

I think it's become pretty clear that Nolan is using the fans as a shield against studio greed. As long as Nolan is the director, he'll have our backs and we'll have his. Without us (the fans and viewers) then the studio isn't really going to rake in the bucks. We are, after all, the ones who have the real final say...we're the ones paying for the movie. The voice of the fans is the most difficult one to ignore, and we have Nolan's back through-and-through. This is obviously advantageous to Nolan's crew.

If you want proof of this, look at Justice League and how that turned out. No support from us, no support from Bale and no support from Nolan. The movie isn't going to happen as a result. Nolan is thinking in synchronicity with us and vice versa, and this is turning out phenomenal results such as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Really, it's a great time in film-making right now and TDK is proof of this. The source material is being followed and the fans are being listened to, and it's turning out some amazing results that are making a lot of people rich. We have Nolan to thank, and I'm certain that Nolan is thanking us (cha-ching).

So, the question is not so much whether or not the studio is willing to **** with the third film or Nolan, but rather, whether or not the studio is willing to **** with us.

 

[baerrtt]

Coming to this discussion late but we're talking about a film that looks set to be the 2nd highest grossing of all time. A movie that quite frankly is one the darkest films to ever be the top grosser of it's year (barring any competition from HP). Where the love interest (who's killed) is played by an actress who though attractive is far from a babe. A comic book movie that could possibly end up with major Oscar nominations next year (and not just the expected nom for Ledger).

Add all this up and I sincerley doubt WB are going to mess with Nolan on the creative decisions of the next film the way Avi messed with Raimi after SM2 or more appropriately the way WB messed with Tim Burton after BATMAN RETURNS.

 

[spideyman101]

The fact that there's a good chance that Joker won't return as well as Two-Face will tempt WB to hinder Nolan's process. The fact that Riddler will be the villain will tempt them... because he's nowhere as dramatic and chaotic as Joker, and WB will be sure to try and step in and help as much as possible.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I really do hope that WB lets Nolan do his thing for a third film (if he decides to come back) and let him do the characters justice yet again.

 

[TimidationGame]

I thought it was mentioned somewhere in the extras in BB BluRay, that DC/WB forced the Batpod on Nolan for TDK. I think they stated they always want something new in each film (I'm guessing for merchandising).

Oooops, it was not on the disc, it was on the show Batman Tech.

 

[jmc]

I thought it was mentioned somewhere in the extras in BB BluRay, that DC/WB forced the Batpod on Nolan for TDK. I think they stated they always want something new in each film (I'm guessing for merchandising).

I'm pretty sure the pod was Nolan's idea and WB had nothing to do with it.

 

[nickyg641]

The fact that there's a good chance that Joker won't return as well as Two-Face will tempt WB to hinder Nolan's process. The fact that Riddler will be the villain will tempt them... because he's nowhere as dramatic and chaotic as Joker, and WB will be sure to try and step in and help as much as possible.

Who said anything about the Riddler?