The Dark Knight Let's debate various aspects of TDK

[Keyser Sushi]

Not really. What both films did was make their characters relevant to the here and now. They are the "updated" versions.

Yes and no.

Did Casino Royale use modern technology and such? Sure. But the character that Daniel Craig played is the character that Ian Fleming wrote about. The character that Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore played is not.

See the difference?

Likewise, how did "Begins" really update Batman? Everything in Begins is adapted from the comics in some form or other - and from all eras of the comics. All Nolan and Goyer really did is restore the character to what he he was in 1939 - with some Miller and some O'Neill and some Loeb thrown in for good measure.

 

[Crook]

Did Casino Royale use modern technology and such? Sure. But the character that Daniel Craig played is the character that Ian Fleming wrote about. The character that Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore played is not.

See the difference?

Well to be fair, the Ian Fleming Bond was pretty irrelevant to the image that the mainstream saw Bond to be, made famous by the movies.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yes and no.

Did Casino Royale use modern technology and such? Sure. But the character that Daniel Craig played is the character that Ian Fleming wrote about. The character that Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore played is not.

See the difference?

Not really. Fleming's Bond was never the film version Jason Bourne (Which both Batman and Bond have become with their own little traits). Fleming's Bond was campy to a point (Especially the later books) and featured a more traditional brains over brawl British hero. One who's words did most of his fighting and wasn't going to survive his car flipping 60 million times. He be slightly above average to the eye and would probably need to smoke a dozen packs a day to keep his nerve (Honestly Bond doesn't even smoke anymore).

The Bond we have now is the "Edgy" version of the parody we have seen since Thunderball.

Likewise, how did "Begins" really update Batman? Everything in Begins is adapted from the comics in some form or other - and from all eras of the comics. All Nolan and Goyer really did is restore the character to what he he was in 1939 - with some Miller and some O'Neill and some Loeb thrown in for good measure.

Actually the roots of Batman where lost a long time ago. What he have here is the world that was developed in the 80s updated for now. Batman was never was a nervous wreck, with actually dangerous villains to face, while running around with military grade equipment. Heck all his detective work was done by Fox and Rachel in the first film. He was really just around to blow things up (Dark Knight Returns Style).

Again not complaining. Enjoy both version, but neither is in anyway "back to the roots". Though I think it is funny that now Batman (A children's character) is attempting to gain its rep with adults, while it is the exact opposite with Bond.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Well to be fair, the Ian Fleming Bond was pretty irrelevant to the image that the mainstream saw Bond to be, made famous by the movies.

That's very true. But all I claimed was that CR returned the character to his roots - his roots being the Fleming novels.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's very true. But all I claimed was that CR returned the character to his roots - his roots being the Fleming novels.

Have you read Fleming's novels? Because I know what the producers where pushing, but it just isn't the case. It is the same for the Killer Batman.

 

[StorminNorman]

I've always had the desire to see him turn things on their ear in BB3. I've said many times in the past that I thought it'd be fun to pull a Sherlock Holmes "The Final Problem" and have Batman appear to die taking out a resurrected Ra's. But the way things have developed storywise, it's more likely that Two-Face will own the show in BB3.

Still, doing something unexpected with the story would be a good move. And I do think it should be able to stand as a trilogy, with some sort of resolution in the end, though of course, still leaving a setup for a fourth if the stars align. t:

Doing something unexpected? Nolan? Never

What are your thoughts on Batman After Nolan?

Back in the day, when we'd heard Goyer's old plan to have Joker scar Harvey, I wanted to see Harvey go after Joker for revenge and Batman have to protect Joker from Two-Face. As much fun as that would have been I don't see it happening now.

I think there was potential there. But I think Two Face should still want to hunt down Joker as it is. In fact I think Two-Face targeting Joker even with no real personal motive could play into a more intriguing story.

If Joker has a role to play in the 3rd one, by all means recast. It sucks to have to do it, sure, but it doesn't have to suck filmically, if you know what I mean. There are plenty of actors out there who can do a great Joker performance. The difference is it won't by any means be the same as Heath's. Nor should it be.

Exactly. I think Nolan trying to limit himself by preventing a recast. There are many actors that could play the Joker, even Heath's.

I really wouldn't mind seeing Ra's return in a surprise twist. I won't be disappointed if it doesn't happen, but I'll be totally impressed if it does. There's always room to fit in Penguin or Riddler in a minor capacity with the option to expand their roles later. And Catwoman is always enjoyable.

I hope Ra's does gets his resurrection at some point. If only because Liam Neeson improves the movie great.

I think Paul Giamati's Penguin could be fantastic. Paul Bettany's Riddler. I really want Mad Hatter, or even Maxie Zeus in a minor role.

I think after Joker - Catwoman becomes mandatory.

Paul Bettany is perfect for anything he sets his mind to.

Spoiler

Especially that.

He plans on turning of Gravity at any moment.

Abject horror.

Why no faith?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Not really. Fleming's Bond was never the film version Jason Bourne (Which both Batman and Bond have become with their own little traits). Fleming's Bond was campy to a point (Especially the later books) and featured a more traditional brains over brawl British hero. One who's words did most of his fighting and wasn't going to survive his car flipping 60 million times. He be slightly above average to the eye and would probably need to smoke a dozen packs a day to keep his nerve (Honestly Bond doesn't even smoke anymore).

You think so? I have to begin by saying that I've never read a Bourne book or seen a Bourne movie, so I can't comment on how that may have impacted either of these characters. But I don't remember Fleming's Bond (and I read all of those books last summer) being particularly campy, per se. You say he was brains over brawn but he always managed to get physically ruined by the end of every book, because he was in a very physical line of work.

I even seem to remember something along the lines of the "blunt instrument" description being attributed to double-0 agents in the first chapter of Fleming's CR.

Also, you said Fleming's Bond wouldn't survive that car wreck but in fact he did - in the novel Moonraker.

The Bond we have now is the "Edgy" version of the parody we have seen since Thunderball.

I don't see it that way. I agree that the character has been given a more physical nature in CR than he had in Fleming's books, but that isn't to say that this side of the character was never there to begin with.

Actually the roots of Batman where lost a long time ago. What he have here is the world that was developed in the 80s updated for now. Batman was never was a nervous wreck, with actually dangerous villains to face, while running around with military grade equipment. Heck all his detective work was done by Fox and Rachel in the first film. He was really just around to blow things up (Dark Knight Returns Style).

You clearly have never read the old Batman stories. Joe Chill, for instance, is part of Batman's 1940 origin, and was never mentioned by name in Year One. Batman in 1939 blew a LOT of stuff up. He was that kind of guy. Batman in the 1940's was a master swordsman and hand-to-hand combatant. Ra's al Ghul was created in the 1970's. Now I know - Begins borrowed Heavily from Year One and The Long Halloween. But then again Year One and The Long Halloween borrowed heavily from the 1940's in their own right. Begins, as I stated in one of the first posts in this thread - combined all the best aspects of Batman from EVERY era, and put them together in one package. I think it's incredibly true to the character's roots.

Now, about that detective argument - I am SO sick of that argument. Real life detectives depend a lot on informants and experts in certain fields. They are not Sherlock Holmes. I realize that Batman IS supposed to be a rather Holmesian detective, and I'm not arguing that point. I'm merely suggesting that your assumption that depending on Fox's scientific expertise or trying to protect Rachel from harm somehow constitutes them doing his detective work for him, is erroneous at best and a flagrant lack of a grasp on reality at worst

Again not complaining. Enjoy both version, but neither is in anyway "back to the roots". Though I think it is funny that now Batman (A children's character) is attempting to gain its rep with adults, while it is the exact opposite with Bond.

I don't think Casino Royale was a kiddie movie. I don't think that "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" is necessarily a kiddie story, either.

I think you're just being a contrarian.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Have you read Fleming's novels? Because I know what the producers where pushing, but it just isn't the case. It is the same for the Killer Batman.

I have read Fleming's Casino Royale, it was the first Bond book I picked up, well before the movie.

I am aware that the movie is not a page-for-page adaptation. But movies never are. It is, however, if we're being honest, a VERY faithful adaptation.

 

[Sandouras]

I think that Batman did all the detective work FOR ratchel and the DA.

We didnt see him take pics of Judge Fadden, or collect the cargo manifests, etc, but rachel said: "this guy gave us everything"

 

[Sandouras]

I have read Fleming's Casino Royale, it was the first Bond book I picked up, well before the movie.

I am aware that the movie is not a page-for-page adaptation. But movies never are. It is, however, if we're being honest, a VERY faithful adaptation.

and a boring movie with pacing problems. Bond better get his normal charm back for the next film. I ll be honest though, not only did this bond lack the humour and charm, but he looks like a punk and not like a gentleman. Seeing Brosnan in a hawaiian shirt with flowers makes me think that he is a lawyer or doctor on vacation. When i saw Craig i thought he was the porter.

Goldeneye was the best Bond film in my opinion.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I have read Fleming's Casino Royale, it was the first Bond book I picked up, well before the movie.

I am aware that the movie is not a page-for-page adaptation. But movies never are. It is, however, if we're being honest, a VERY faithful adaptation.

Not talking about a page-for-page adaption. I am talking the atmosphere and the portrayal of Bond. The first hour is exactly the opposite of Fleming's Bond. It is Bond being Bourne, as is the final 15. Extravagant chase scenes and final showdown. They even cheapened Vesper's end by doing this.

Same for Batman, which is an action film. Batman, at its roots, is a story of a detective. Not the world's great mixed martial artist, who has a tank in his garage and is willing to watch people die (no matter how terrible they are).

Again though, I love both.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

and a boring movie with pacing problems. Bond better get his normal charm back for the next film. I ll be honest though, not only did this bond lack the humour and charm, but he looks like a punk and not like a gentleman. Seeing Brosnan in a hawaiian shirt with flowers makes me think that he is a lawyer or doctor on vacation. When i saw Craig i thought he was the porter.

Goldeneye was the best Bond film in my opinion.

Casino Royale is far from boring and probably is the best of all the films (Though I will always love Goldeneye and From Russia with Love). Craig's humor and charm is that of a hard man with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. That is far more true to the Bond of Fleming's. The problem with Brosnan is that he was always acting as if he had one over you and thus was a bit obnoxious and obvious.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Doing something unexpected? Nolan? Never

What are your thoughts on Batman After Nolan?

I worry. I know there are a lot of other great filmmakers out there who can do great things with the character, but at this point WB still hasn't fully earned my trust. Delaying "Man of Steel," canceling Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, all in favor of a Justice League movie... no, WB, if you're watching, I don't trust you guys at ALL... you guys clearly still have a penchant for making stupid, "safe" decisions that will do nothing but bite you in the ass like a rabid wiener dog.

I think there was potential there. But I think Two Face should still want to hunt down Joker as it is. In fact I think Two-Face targeting Joker even with no real personal motive could play into a more intriguing story.

It could at that. I think it would be very potent if Batman was trying to stop Harvey from seeking revenge, but even so, Batman as I know him in the comics believes that life is sacred and that nobody is beyond saving, which is why he never gives up on Harvey and also why he never kills the Joker no matter what terrible stuff the guy does. So there's still a lot of room for beautiful character development for Batman.

Exactly. I think Nolan trying to limit himself by preventing a recast. There are many actors that could play the Joker, even Heath's.

Has Nolan said he wouldn't recast?

I hope Ra's does gets his resurrection at some point. If only because Liam Neeson improves the movie great.

Neeson is one of those guys with an INCREDIBLY intense presence, despite, or because because of, the fact that he is a very quiet man.

I think Paul Giamati's Penguin could be fantastic. Paul Bettany's Riddler. I really want Mad Hatter, or even Maxie Zeus in a minor role.

Maxie Zeus I could live without - as for the others, bring 'em on.

I think after Joker - Catwoman becomes mandatory.

I think Catwoman becomes mandatory by virtue of being Catwoman.

He plans on turning of Gravity at any moment.

Ah, Bettany, ever the trickster.

Why no faith?

Justice League? It's an obvious coward-move by WB to test the waters before they spend any money on any DC characters other than Batman or Superman. It's almost like they don't think Flash or Wonder Woman or Green Lantern could support films on their own, despite the obvious fact that, if nothing else, a tall beautiful brunette in a skimpy costume will sell tickets even if the script is piss. Now imagine if the script ISN'T piss. It's like PRINTING MONEY. Those idiots.

Meanwhile they've pushed back Singer's "Man of Steel," which would be a far superior film, but WB has a problem.

See, in the old days, WB did what they wanted and didn't listen to fans. Then Batman & Robin happened and they tried to blame its failure as a film on Harry Knowles' scathing review - which is ridiculous of course, it failed because it was a TERRIBLE film. So they take 7 years off from doing Batman movies and then take a gamble on Nolan because he can do a good movie for not much money, comparatively, and they bought Singer to do Superman because he had fanboy adulation with X2. But the fanboys trashed "Superman Returns" and nobody could agree on Dave Goyer's Flash, Whedon's WW and the idea of Jack Black as GL was universally hated.

So WB, who had gotten cocky, are now afraid. They're afraid of fanboys. And the very thing which liberated Batman from the bowels of suckage has now doomed the rest of the DC Pantheon to crappy ensemble movies which will be high on action and low on character development, and which serve only to undermine Singer's Superman series and, by putting some strange random Batman in it, it will also play oddly between Nolan's Batman films.

Basically it's a stupid, stupid, stupid idea no matter how you look at it.

 

[Sandouras]

Casino Royale is far from boring and probably is the best of all the films (Though I will always love Goldeneye and From Russia with Love). Craig's humor and charm is that of a hard man with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. That is far more true to the Bond of Fleming's. The problem with Brosnan is that he was always acting as if he had one over you and thus was a bit obnoxious and obvious.

What do you mean by that?

I havent read any of Flemmings books. From what i hear he was a misogynistic pig and that the book bond has a lot of differences from the movie one which everyone knows and most love.

So as far as the movie bond goes, Brosnan looked and acted ok by me. All his films except Die Another Day were good but Goldeneye was exceptional. Tomorrow never dies was a bit bland and The world is not enough was.....meh....(i liked the chicks and the BMW Z8 though lol).

Casino was boring. It had some good action scenes, it had Bond's initiation, it portrayed his wits and acute mind but i found the romance lacking and the ending was bad. It was too convoluting to be enjoyable, you didnt know how to feel about the girl and the film ended with bond holding a gun on someone as if the sequel would come next week and not in 3 years.

And worst of all, a poker game for half the film. A boring, uninspired and unbelievably predictable poker game.

Again, Craig is rough and gritty but he doesnt look right. He doesnt belong in a suit.

EDIT: No, actually Tomorrow Never Dies was very good as well. Its highly underrated

 

[Sandouras]

I love Wonder Woman. She is one of my favourite characters but thats because of the JL. All the comics i have read with her alone are sh1t. And even i wouldnt go watch a movie only about her. Maybe if it was set in antiquity (dont forget that she is immortal and very very old) and she was leading an Amazon army without wearing the american flag as her panties. Her costume in real life looks ridiculous (golden age my god!) and i cant see a plot with her in the 21st century that will keep me in my seat for 2 hours.

 

[Crook]

Justice League? It's an obvious coward-move by WB to test the waters before they spend any money on any DC characters other than Batman or Superman. It's almost like they don't think Flash or Wonder Woman or Green Lantern could support films on their own,

They have no reason to believe that at this point, when Superman has underperformed. If a big icon like him can't pull in the big bucks, then the lesser known heroes are an even bigger risk financially for the studio.

despite the obvious fact that, if nothing else, a tall beautiful brunette in a skimpy costume will sell tickets even if the script is piss.

No, it wouldn't. Movies just don't sell themselves, especially a film starring a woman. Not these days anyway.

See, in the old days, WB did what they wanted and didn't listen to fans. Then Batman & Robin happened and they tried to blame its failure as a film on Harry Knowles' scathing review - which is ridiculous of course, it failed because it was a TERRIBLE film. So they take 7 years off from doing Batman movies and then take a gamble on Nolan because he can do a good movie for not much money, comparatively, and they bought Singer to do Superman because he had fanboy adulation with X2. But the fanboys trashed "Superman Returns" and nobody could agree on Dave Goyer's Flash, Whedon's WW and the idea of Jack Black as GL was universally hated.

Taken all this into consideration, then it should really come to no surprise that a JL film is being considered. I've said it before, but had SR actually reached the same critical and mainstream success as BB, we'd have had our Flash and WW films by now.

 

[StylishHokie21]

I have read Fleming's Casino Royale, it was the first Bond book I picked up, well before the movie.

I am aware that the movie is not a page-for-page adaptation. But movies never are. It is, however, if we're being honest, a VERY faithful adaptation.

I thought Casino Royale was a lot better than most of the Brosnan movies with maybe the exception of Goldeneye.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I think that Batman did all the detective work FOR ratchel and the DA.

We didnt see him take pics of Judge Fadden, or collect the cargo manifests, etc, but rachel said: "this guy gave us everything"

An excellent point.

and a boring movie with pacing problems. Bond better get his normal charm back for the next film. I ll be honest though, not only did this bond lack the humour and charm, but he looks like a punk and not like a gentleman. Seeing Brosnan in a hawaiian shirt with flowers makes me think that he is a lawyer or doctor on vacation. When i saw Craig i thought he was the porter.

Fleming's Bond was a bit of a rough customer, though. He had a scar on his cheek, and Fleming always described him as "cold." He didn't really love the women, most of the time, and he had no qualms about killing when it was required of him - which was frequently. As far as the personality goes, I'll give you an example from "Goldfinger." You may remember the classic scene in the movie where Goldfinger has Bond on a table about to get cut in half, and Bond says, "do you expect me to talk?" And Goldfinger says, "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."

Fleming's Bond kept explaining to Goldfinger that he was just a thug looking for work, nothing more, and Goldfinger said he didn't believe that, and Bond actually said to Goldfinger, "Then you can go **** yourself," to which Goldfinger responded, "even I would not be capable of that, Mr. Bond."

A bit coarser than the Bond you think of, eh?

[qoute]Goldeneye was the best Bond film in my opinion.[/quote]

Oh, not even. Dr. No, From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Never Say Never Again, Casino Royale - those are the best ones, and not in that order. Goldeneye was a rehash of a lot of older Bond material -- I knew as soon as he was on the island driving around with Randy Quaid that the base was going to be under the lake. You know how I knew that? You Only Live Twice.

Not talking about a page-for-page adaption. I am talking the atmosphere and the portrayal of Bond. The first hour is exactly the opposite of Fleming's Bond. It is Bond being Bourne, as is the final 15. Extravagant chase scenes and final showdown. They even cheapened Vesper's end by doing this.

They did cheapen Vesper's end, I'll go along with that. But I thought the atmosphere felt more like a Fleming Bond than any movie since OHMSS. And the portrayal of Bond felt spot on to me. But then I'm remembering how Bond killed Red Grant in "From Russia, With Love," the novel - and how Bond blew up Mr. Big's yacht in "Live and Let Die" and it was mostly an act of revenge for what had been done to Felix. Fleming's Bond was a hardass.

Same for Batman, which is an action film. Batman, at its roots, is a story of a detective. Not the world's great mixed martial artist, who has a tank in his garage and is willing to watch people die (no matter how terrible they are).

Batman watched a lot of people die in 1939. A LOT of people.

And Batman has ALWAYS been a great fighter as well as a great detective. So none of this is new or in any way inaccurate to the character. As for the Tumbler, well, it's not a tank.

Again though, I love both.

Assuming you're a dude, I would have to revoke your penis license if you didn't.

 

[StorminNorman]

I worry. I know there are a lot of other great filmmakers out there who can do great things with the character, but at this point WB still hasn't fully earned my trust. Delaying "Man of Steel," canceling Wonder Woman, Flash, Green Lantern, all in favor of a Justice League movie... no, WB, if you're watching, I don't trust you guys at ALL... you guys clearly still have a penchant for making stupid, "safe" decisions that will do nothing but bite you in the ass like a rabid wiener dog.

I don't blame WB for Delaying Man of Steel after Superman Returns.

While their lack of progress in Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern (though Flash and Green Lantern are still...kinda in the works...technically) is frustrating - but their Justice League first approach does make sense...if Justice League is great.

See, I think people bash Justice League fairly unfairly. Everything coming out of Justice League was great. The story sounded interesting, the director was great - the cast was...unconventional sure - but so was casting an unknown as Superman in '78. Unconventional is not always bad. And given George Miller forcing WB to including Martian Manhunter, the story sounded great. I would of trusted Miller.

Who would you like to see take over Batman after Nolan? I know you haven't seen V for Vendetta, but if you take that director with Jeff Loeb consulting on the script, there is a lot of promise there, IMO.

It could at that. I think it would be very potent if Batman was trying to stop Harvey from seeking revenge, but even so, Batman as I know him in the comics believes that life is sacred and that nobody is beyond saving, which is why he never gives up on Harvey and also why he never kills the Joker no matter what terrible stuff the guy does. So there's still a lot of room for beautiful character development for Batman.

I remember seeing a crossover of Marvel/DC where Batman was fighting Punisher to save the Joker's life. I think THAT scene would be incredibly powerful.

Has Nolan said he wouldn't recast?

No, my last comment should of read "I hope Nolan does not limit himself..."

Neeson is one of those guys with an INCREDIBLY intense presence, despite, or because because of, the fact that he is a very quiet man.

Yes. He needs to replay Ra's. NEEDS.

Maxie Zeus I could live without - as for the others, bring 'em on.

Maxie Zeus is glorious. Someday he will get his due.

I think Catwoman becomes mandatory by virtue of being Catwoman.

True, very true. My point was though that if Batman has a number 1 must - its Joker. Number 2 is Catwoman

Ah, Bettany, ever the trickster.

Bettany v. Rosenbaum in a Flash movie. Bettany for Trickster damnit!

Justice League? It's an obvious coward-move by WB to test the waters before they spend any money on any DC characters other than Batman or Superman. It's almost like they don't think Flash or Wonder Woman or Green Lantern could support films on their own, despite the obvious fact that, if nothing else, a tall beautiful brunette in a skimpy costume will sell tickets even if the script is piss. Now imagine if the script ISN'T piss. It's like PRINTING MONEY. Those idiots.

I am not sure if its a coward-move rather than an incredibly smart business move. A great Justice Leauge movies opens up 5 new characters for Movies. Look at what X-Men did, Wolverine and Magnito got their own films. Building up Wally West while Barry Allen plays the Flash and dies in a Justice League movie is the best way to open up a Flash franchise. Using John Stewart in JL to open up the Green Lantern corps with Hal Jordan is smart.

Meanwhile they've pushed back Singer's "Man of Steel," which would be a far superior film, but WB has a problem.

It may of been a far superior FILM, but I am not sure I can even say that. George Miller seemed to have a great handle on the material.

In the end though, JL probably would of been a better movie for WB - and for the fans if it created the spin off's WB wanted to do.

See, in the old days, WB did what they wanted and didn't listen to fans. Then Batman & Robin happened and they tried to blame its failure as a film on Harry Knowles' scathing review - which is ridiculous of course, it failed because it was a TERRIBLE film. So they take 7 years off from doing Batman movies and then take a gamble on Nolan because he can do a good movie for not much money, comparatively, and they bought Singer to do Superman because he had fanboy adulation with X2. But the fanboys trashed "Superman Returns" and nobody could agree on Dave Goyer's Flash, Whedon's WW and the idea of Jack Black as GL was universally hated.

So WB, who had gotten cocky, are now afraid. They're afraid of fanboys. And the very thing which liberated Batman from the bowels of suckage has now doomed the rest of the DC Pantheon to crappy ensemble movies which will be high on action and low on character development, and which serve only to undermine Singer's Superman series and, by putting some strange random Batman in it, it will also play oddly between Nolan's Batman films.

Basically it's a stupid, stupid, stupid idea no matter how you look at it.

I don't think WB is afraid of fans. I think they love their fans - and I mean that. They have fed us well - they got us the actor we wanted in Bale, they gave us the director we wanted in Singer. We are getting Watchmen with Zach Snyder! WB has treated its fans well - and its not based purely on horror.

300 showed Watchmen could work (a dark, faithful comic book adaptation). Neither Batman Begins or Superman Returns has made the creation of WW/Flash/GL worth the risk. None of them have been great box office sucesses. And these are with HUGE names.

If TDK does 300+ MIL domestically - WB will churn out those movies. But until then...its not smart for them to.

 

[Sandouras]

They have no reason to believe that at this point, when Superman has underperformed. If a big icon like him can't pull in the big bucks, then the lesser known heroes are an even bigger risk financially for the studio.

SR didnt pull because it sucked.

No, it wouldn't. Movies just don't sell themselves, especially a film starring a woman. Not these days anyway.

at least not a superhero movie. Especially not with wonderwoman.


Jack Black as GL? My god! Who thought of that? Let me guess, it was that anti-burton ****** wasnt it? Why do they still keep him around?

Also, critics praised SR more than BB. How can this happen? This is ridiculous! Not because this is a batman forum, but because it objectively sucked!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You think so? I have to begin by saying that I've never read a Bourne book or seen a Bourne movie, so I can't comment on how that may have impacted either of these characters. But I don't remember Fleming's Bond (and I read all of those books last summer) being particularly campy, per se. You say he was brains over brawn but he always managed to get physically ruined by the end of every book, because he was in a very physical line of work.

I even seem to remember something along the lines of the "blunt instrument" description being attributed to double-0 agents in the first chapter of Fleming's CR.

The Bourne films are what they are basis the action sequences off. Just watch a one. Same for the Batman films. Everyone needs to fight like Bourne, just like everyone needed to be Bruce Lee in the 70s.

Also the "blunt instrument idea" is based around Bond being able to kill legally. It is a metaphor.

Also, you said Fleming's Bond wouldn't survive that car wreck but in fact he did - in the novel Moonraker.

Have not read Moonraker, but I don't the crash is on that level.

I don't see it that way. I agree that the character has been given a more physical nature in CR than he had in Fleming's books, but that isn't to say that this side of the character was never there to begin with.

Read "You Only Live Twice". This is Bond at his most deadly in the physical sense. Now compare this to Bond now.

You clearly have never read the old Batman stories. Joe Chill, for instance, is part of Batman's 1940 origin, and was never mentioned by name in Year One. Batman in 1939 blew a LOT of stuff up. He was that kind of guy. Batman in the 1940's was a master swordsman and hand-to-hand combatant. Ra's al Ghul was created in the 1970's. Now I know - Begins borrowed Heavily from Year One and The Long Halloween. But then again Year One and The Long Halloween borrowed heavily from the 1940's in their own right. Begins, as I stated in one of the first posts in this thread - combined all the best aspects of Batman from EVERY era, and put them together in one package. I think it's incredibly true to the character's roots.

Listen not talking names here, or even the characters. It is how it is written and how it is played. Forget that it broke the cardinal rule of Batman's character, it is the story of Miller's Batman, or more appropriately what has become of Miller's Batman since the 80s. That isn't the original Batman.

Now, about that detective argument - I am SO sick of that argument. Real life detectives depend a lot on informants and experts in certain fields. They are not Sherlock Holmes. I realize that Batman IS supposed to be a rather Holmesian detective, and I'm not arguing that point. I'm merely suggesting that your assumption that depending on Fox's scientific expertise or trying to protect Rachel from harm somehow constitutes them doing his detective work for him, is erroneous at best and a flagrant lack of a grasp on reality at worst

Batman isn't reality. It is the supernatural fairy tale. t is the story of a costume superhero that fights clowns, penguins and a man with half a face. The character didn't have emotional problems.

What these films are, is the very cool, but very different post Crisis Bat.

I don't think Casino Royale was a kiddie movie. I don't think that "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate" is necessarily a kiddie story, either.

I think you're just being a contrarian.

Here is a hint. They strive for PG-13 for a reason. There is a reason Bond isn't allowed smoke. They market towards children.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I don't blame WB for Delaying Man of Steel after Superman Returns.

SR was a very good movie, though, received well by critics, and it made decent money. And I, personally, enjoyed the hell out of it. Knowing Singer's style, I'm sure he plans to ramp things up for "Man of Steel" (as he did with X2 over X-Men). In fact he laid a lot of groundwork in SR for a bigger, badder sequel. I hope we get to see it.

While their lack of progress in Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern (though Flash and Green Lantern are still...kinda in the works...technically) is frustrating - but their Justice League first approach does make sense...if Justice League is great.

That's a big IF, though.

See, I think people bash Justice League fairly unfairly. Everything coming out of Justice League was great. The story sounded interesting, the director was great - the cast was...unconventional sure - but so was casting an unknown as Superman in '78. Unconventional is not always bad. And given George Miller forcing WB to including Martian Manhunter, the story sounded great. I would of trusted Miller.

It's not the casting that bothers me, it's the concept itself. The thing that sold Justice League as a comic book was that it was a team-up book that featured all of your favorite heroes. As a movie, it's a team-up movie that features WB's two flagship superheroes and a bunch of people they're afraid to make movies about. I understand what they're doing but I view it as cowardly.

Who would you like to see take over Batman after Nolan? I know you haven't seen V for Vendetta, but if you take that director with Jeff Loeb consulting on the script, there is a lot of promise there, IMO.

As long as no one named Wachowski or Silver goes near it. Honestly, I don't know who I'd want to see handle Batman after Nolan. I'm not thinking that far ahead. If I get three solid, Nolan Bat-films, I'll feel like I have no right to ask for anything more. And honestly, I have no clue. I mean hell, prior to Begins I'd never heard of Chris Nolan, so I'm clearly not the guy to ask.

I remember seeing a crossover of Marvel/DC where Batman was fighting Punisher to save the Joker's life. I think THAT scene would be incredibly powerful.

It would be. It turns things all around on their side and says a lot about who Batman is as a person, and as a hero.

No, my last comment should of read "I hope Nolan does not limit himself..."

Well, that clarifies things considerably! t:

Yes. He needs to replay Ra's. NEEDS.

Maxie Zeus is glorious. Someday he will get his due.

I've never quite understood the appeal of that one.

True, very true. My point was though that if Batman has a number 1 must - its Joker. Number 2 is Catwoman

Okay, I'll go along with that.

Bettany v. Rosenbaum in a Flash movie. Bettany for Trickster damnit!

I am not sure if its a coward-move rather than an incredibly smart business move. A great Justice Leauge movies opens up 5 new characters for Movies. Look at what X-Men did, Wolverine and Magnito got their own films. Building up Wally West while Barry Allen plays the Flash and dies in a Justice League movie is the best way to open up a Flash franchise. Using John Stewart in JL to open up the Green Lantern corps with Hal Jordan is smart.

I suppose what I'm reacting to is that it's a SAFE move. It's a move that demonstrates a lack of confidence in time-honored characters and properties. I'm seeing a lot of responses here that suggest that this caution is merited, but I've always been irritated by safe decisions like that I suppose. Decisons like that are the reason my Dad still uses dial-up internet. Decisions like that are the reason he's still using a stereo that's trying to explode and a tv that has the worst picture some of you have ever seen, despite having the money to buy newer and better equipment if he so desired. What can I say? They're his choices to make. But at some point you gotta take a chance and buy the plasma TV.

It may of been a far superior FILM, but I am not sure I can even say that. George Miller seemed to have a great handle on the material.

And what else has George Miller done?

In the end though, JL probably would of been a better movie for WB - and for the fans if it created the spin off's WB wanted to do.

Assuming that the movie is successful and it all goes well. Or we might never see those movies.

I don't think WB is afraid of fans. I think they love their fans - and I mean that. They have fed us well - they got us the actor we wanted in Bale, they gave us the director we wanted in Singer. We are getting Watchmen with Zach Snyder! WB has treated its fans well - and its not based purely on horror.

They gave Nolan a tremendous amount of freedom with Begins -- and you yourself showed how the success of Begins helped to bring us Watchmen. And yes they gave us singer for SR, but now that everybody hates that movie for no good reason, they're holding off on letting Singer continue, in favor of an ensemble movie that can't possibly give enough screen time to more than a couple of characters (and how much do you bet it all goes to Batman and Superman?).

If TDK does 300+ MIL domestically - WB will churn out those movies. But until then...its not smart for them to.

If they got the right people and treated the movies the right way, promote them accordingly and so forth, I believe they could make good money. If the movies were creative and new and had something to show for what they were, beyond buff people in funny costumes, they could do quite well, and you know it! Bah. Safe decisions...

 

[DarthSkywalker]

What do you mean by that?

I havent read any of Flemmings books. From what i hear he was a misogynistic pig and that the book bond has a lot of differences from the movie one which everyone knows and most love.

So as far as the movie bond goes, Brosnan looked and acted ok by me. All his films except Die Another Day were good but Goldeneye was exceptional. Tomorrow never dies was a bit bland and The world is not enough was.....meh....(i liked the chicks and the BMW Z8 though lol).

Casino was boring. It had some good action scenes, it had Bond's initiation, it portrayed his wits and acute mind but i found the romance lacking and the ending was bad. It was too convoluting to be enjoyable, you didnt know how to feel about the girl and the film ended with bond holding a gun on someone as if the sequel would come next week and not in 3 years.

And worst of all, a poker game for half the film. A boring, uninspired and unbelievably predictable poker game.

Again, Craig is rough and gritty but he doesnt look right. He doesnt belong in a suit.

EDIT: No, actually Tomorrow Never Dies was very good as well. Its highly underrated

Like Tomorrow Never Dies, outside the almost criminally long scenes based around the ship.

Personally liked the poker game, as it is all about character and such. By looking at your other post you didn't seem to like Returns either, so I see your not a big character development fan, which is cool. Personally liked both though and saw them as an exercise in building a character to be used in the future.

As to Brosnan. Bond is suppose know what fear is. He is a bit cheeky, but Brosnan likes the bit of Bond. He could charm the socks off anyone, but when not in the mood, it was quite different. He is very dry like Craig and is far from the conventional idea of handsome.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

The Bourne films are what they are basis the action sequences off. Just watch a one. Same for the Batman films. Everyone needs to fight like Bourne, just like everyone needed to be Bruce Lee in the 70s.

Well, forgive me, but Batman IS supposed to be a martial artist - that's an idea that's been around in one form or another since the 1950's at least.

Also the "blunt instrument idea" is based around Bond being able to kill legally. It is a metaphor.

I think that was my point.

Have not read Moonraker, but I don't the crash is on that level.

It was pretty spectacular. It's where they lifted that crash scene from, almost wholesale.

Read "You Only Live Twice". This is Bond at his most deadly in the physical sense. Now compare this to Bond now.

I have read it. I've read them all. All the Flemings, anyway. I read them in order. Speaking of deadly, after "You Only Live Twice," a brainwashed Bond comes back to London programmed to assassinate M. That was the opening of "The Man with the Golden Gun."

Listen not talking names here, or even the characters. It is how it is written and how it is played. Forget that it broke the cardinal rule of Batman's character, it is the story of Miller's Batman, or more appropriately what has become of Miller's Batman since the 80s. That isn't the original Batman.

Dude, you're not listening to me. Batman was a killer in 1939 when he was first introduced! So this "cardinal rule" of Batman is not original to the character. My argument was that Begins took Batman back to his roots. This is consistent with that argument.

Batman isn't reality. It is the supernatural fairy tale. t is the story of a costume superhero that fights clowns, penguins and a man with half a face. The character didn't have emotional problems.

Who didn't? When? I'm slightly confused about what you were getting at here.

What these films are, is the very cool, but very different post Crisis Bat.

No; these films have elements of the Post-Crisis Bat, but I'm a Pre-crisis fan myself, and Batman Begins had a LOT of Bronze Age elements and a few Golden Age as well. This will be more true in TDK, where Bruce and Alfred are living in a penthouse apartment. That's straight up 1970's Batman. Just because you ignore what I'm saying, doesn't mean I'm not right.

Here is a hint. They strive for PG-13 for a reason. There is a reason Bond isn't allowed smoke. They market towards children.

No, the reason they strive for PG-13 is because it's financially lucrative. A broader audience means more ticket sales, means a better return on their investment. It's not about kids - Bond isn't meant for kids, teenagers at the youngest, really; but that rating is about the money. Make no mistake.

 

[StorminNorman]

SR was a very good movie, though, received well by critics, and it made decent money. And I, personally, enjoyed the hell out of it. Knowing Singer's style, I'm sure he plans to ramp things up for "Man of Steel" (as he did with X2 over X-Men). In fact he laid a lot of groundwork in SR for a bigger, badder sequel. I hope we get to see it.

You know I loved Superman Returns. I think it is one of the best Superhero films out there. The mainstream did not though, and the Box Office wasn't great. I look forward to Man of Steel - but I see what WB sees.

That's a big IF, though.

Its a no bigger IF than a Flash movie, or a Wonder Woman movie working. In fact, I think with George Michael in charge - it had the greatest chances of going well. The story idea was great and the man has a great resume. I would much rather trust him with JL than Joss Whedon for Wonder Woman - for example.

It's not the casting that bothers me, it's the concept itself. The thing that sold Justice League as a comic book was that it was a team-up book that featured all of your favorite heroes. As a movie, it's a team-up movie that features WB's two flagship superheroes and a bunch of people they're afraid to make movies about. I understand what they're doing but I view it as cowardly.

See, I think most people already KNOW Flash, they KNOW Wonder Woman, etc. etc. I don't think they need a series to be mainstream. Yes, in a perfect world - we would have the films leading up to Justice League. But if we had a perfect world Watchmen would of come out years ago and Justice League Unlimited would still be online.

As long as no one named Wachowski or Silver goes near it. Honestly, I don't know who I'd want to see handle Batman after Nolan. I'm not thinking that far ahead. If I get three solid, Nolan Bat-films, I'll feel like I have no right to ask for anything more. And honestly, I have no clue. I mean hell, prior to Begins I'd never heard of Chris Nolan, so I'm clearly not the guy to ask.

LOL, well played.

It would be. It turns things all around on their side and says a lot about who Batman is as a person, and as a hero.

Exactly. Perfect.

I've never quite understood the appeal of that one.

Maxie Zeus has no appeal. He needs a revamp. Nolan should do it.

I suppose what I'm reacting to is that it's a SAFE move. It's a move that demonstrates a lack of confidence in time-honored characters and properties. I'm seeing a lot of responses here that suggest that this caution is merited, but I've always been irritated by safe decisions like that I suppose. Decisons like that are the reason my Dad still uses dial-up internet. Decisions like that are the reason he's still using a stereo that's trying to explode and a tv that has the worst picture some of you have ever seen, despite having the money to buy newer and better equipment if he so desired. What can I say? They're his choices to make. But at some point you gotta take a chance and buy the plasma TV.
And what else has George Miller done?

A lack of faith in the character, or a lack of faith in the talent put behind a character? Or a lack in faith of the Box Office?

Yes - I wouldn't mind WB taking chances, but this is a company. Green Lantern bombing could mean Batman 4 not being made. One mistake doesn't just bomb the chances of that character having a franchise, but it puts the life of several franchises at stake.

A George Miller gave us Mad Max.

Assuming that the movie is successful and it all goes well. Or we might never see those movies.

I don't see how a well made Justice League film doesn't do well.

They gave Nolan a tremendous amount of freedom with Begins -- and you yourself showed how the success of Begins helped to bring us Watchmen. And yes they gave us singer for SR, but now that everybody hates that movie for no good reason, they're holding off on letting Singer continue, in favor of an ensemble movie that can't possibly give enough screen time to more than a couple of characters (and how much do you bet it all goes to Batman and Superman?).

I don't think WB has in any way forced out Singer. Singer is working on other movies, yes - but a Writers Strike would delay Superman:MOS greatly as is.

But the lack of faith in Singer is present only because the FANS now doubt him.

If they got the right people and treated the movies the right way, promote them accordingly and so forth, I believe they could make good money. If the movies were creative and new and had something to show for what they were, beyond buff people in funny costumes, they could do quite well, and you know it! Bah. Safe decisions...

I am not arguing AGAINST the creation of these movies - only in defense of Justice League. I could PREFER these films to be solo, as I do, but understand how a Justice League movie could work. Well.