The Dark Knight Rises Make batman 3 into 2 seperate movies

joshgonemad

it ends here...........
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Points
11
wb wants a long series of batman simmilar to that of harry potter, the problem is nolan is gonna do one more and call quits, and bale may do the same. so with this problem in mind, wb may not get 8 like they would want but they could get 4 instead of just 3. the answer is film enough footage and break it into 2 chapters. this way nolan gets his final bat flick but wb gets an extra movie( cash cow). to split it into 2 movies isnt all that hard, they usuall shoot enough scenes that it could make for 6 hrs of footage and they trim and edit it till there is 2 hrs left. i say split into 2. wb, the cast and crew will all make trillions of dollars and we the fans get an extra nolan bat flick. use the same villian story arc, same suit and car. make the villian HATED!! have him do HORRIABLE things, like torture kids or animals, something that makes the audience HATE him. when batman gets ahold of him in the 4th film, all u want batman to do is rip his throat out and bash this villians face in, mabey even cripple him. the best villian for that would be blackmask. but spread the arc out and in the last 30 mins of batman 4 finally have batman have him by the throat. the suspence will have fans clamoring for it between 3 and 4. what do u guys think?
 
Last edited:
I don't really mind back-to-back shooting, given the story supports a lengthened running time.
 
This just isn't a good idea, pal. I could sit and list the reasons, but there's really no point. The only thing that needs to be said is that Nolan would never go for it. This would be a hard thing to pull off in the right way. It's possible, I suppose. But the slightest mistake and it would crash and burn.


-KTB
 
This just isn't a good idea, pal. I could sit and list the reasons, but there's really no point. The only thing that needs to be said is that Nolan would never go for it. This would be a hard thing to pull off in the right way. It's possible, I suppose. But the slightest mistake and it would crash and burn.


-KTB
Exactly!
 
Lemme just point out that Harry Potter just had their 6th straight successful movie, with no hitches. AND they still have 2 more to go.

It's not impossible, you just need a steady team of consultants who handle the logistics of creating multiple movies within a franchise. Potter has it. So does Bond.
 
Lemme just point out that Harry Potter just had their 6th straight successful movie, with no hitches. AND they still have 2 more to go.

It's not impossible, you just need a steady team of consultants who handle the logistics of creating multiple movies within a franchise. Potter has it. So does Bond.
That would have been great. But it seems that DC and WB have no clue when it comes to superhero movies. Its all down to the director.

They need to make a team of consultants that will keep some things the way they are supposed to be. Like... oh i dunno.... no neon in gotham? No ice puns?

If this team handles all the DC movies in collaboration with the directors, they could orchestrate a unification of the DC universe and the eventual appearence of the JL, just like Marvel is trying to do now. Maybe one day...
 
Last edited:
I hope this thread is a joke. if it is then I :applaud you for making me :lmao:

if it's not..then..well...:facepalm:facepalm:facepalm :facepalm:facepalm:facepalm
 
If it was a story that was meant for that...and it was written as such...then I'm all for a "to be continued..." ending to Batman 3.

However, if they are just doing it for the sake of it...then no.

What you're not understanding is:

It takes the same effort- if not MORE to make one 5 hour film as it does to make two separate 2 1/2 hour pictures.

If they just took a rough, unedited film and let it have a super long running time of 5 hours and split it into two chapters...it would be a disaster..
Pacing would be off, there would be only one climax in the two films, etc..

Making Batman 3 &4 as on long film for the sake of it is dumb.

If say there was a massive story that Nolan wanted to tell, say:

- Black Mask vs Penguin in a gang war.
- Catwoman mysteriously in the mix.
- Deadshot or Bane hunting Batman to collect the bounty on his head.
- The last of the mob element, Tony Zucco squaring off against the "freaks" in a showdown on a fare ground, resulting in a bloodbath (John and Mary Grayson among the dead).
- Bruce taking in an orphaned Richard Grayson
- A cop killer is on a spree, further framing the Batman for crimes he hasn't committed, leaving clues at each scene
- We discover the cop killer is The Riddler
- We discover that all of the events of the film were orchestrated by none other than Ra's Al Ghul, who has returned

so on and so forth...


If they wrote a script that had a lot of these elements- they could...and would have to make it two separate pictures.


But doing it just for the sake of it... with no creative reason...no.

-R
 
Lemme just point out that Harry Potter just had their 6th straight successful movie, with no hitches. AND they still have 2 more to go.
That's because it's Harry Potter. If a generation didn't fall in love with this little kid when they were in Kindergarten, it would be the dumbest thing this side of Twilight.

Besides, Batman doesn't have anything near the fanbase franchises like Harry Potter and Star Wars have. People don't dress-up in costume to see Batman. (Although, the sequel's midnight premiere is going to have some Jokers in every theater)

And about this idea in general, http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=326713
 
That's because it's Harry Potter. If a generation didn't fall in love with this little kid when they were in Kindergarten, it would be the dumbest thing this side of Twilight.
Except there are many generations involved in the audience of Potter. It's not just kids. It has a wide demographic, hence why it is so successful worldwide.

Besides, Batman doesn't have anything near the fanbase franchises like Harry Potter and Star Wars have. People don't dress-up in costume to see Batman. (Although, the sequel's midnight premiere is going to have some Jokers in every theater)
TDK grossed more than any of those films have. Accounted for inflation, B89 also beats out most of the films. Evidently, there is an audience. It's not a mystery why Batman keeps coming back every other decade or so into pop culture and rakes in the dough.

Batman has been around for 70 years. And will be around for much longer. How long have Potter and SW been around and stayed in the limelight?
 
Except there are many generations involved in the audience of Potter. It's not just kids. It has a wide demographic, hence why it is so successful worldwide.

TDK grossed more than any of those films have. Accounted for inflation, B89 also beats out most of the films. Evidently, there is an audience. It's not a mystery why Batman keeps coming back every other decade or so into pop culture and rakes in the dough.

Batman has been around for 70 years. And will be around for much longer. How long have Potter and SW been around and stayed in the limelight?
You bring up some pretty good points, most of which I can't argue with. However, I don't think the Batman franchise has the staying power the Harry Potter franchise, though. Whether you love or hate the movies, you have to admit that the foundation for the franchise is the 7 books. Let's just assume for a second that the movies existed without the books. The series probably wouldn't have moved past the second or third film AT BEST. And even though Batman has been around for 70 years, it still does not have the large and dedicated fanbase that Harry Potter has garnered in the past decade or so since the first book was published.
 
I'm not doubting the foundation of the books and their existence being the primary reason why they can churn out the films so quickly. However, a story is a story, no matter the medium. HP has the advantage of not only the books being made concurrently, but they have different creative teams being ushered in under the command of another fixed higher command. It's a team effort that rotates with great ease because no one is creatively tired out.

With Batman, there's just Nolan and co. That's it. There's no one above them and there's no one working with them. Thus the product output is much less as a result. We're dealing with two very different production methods. I'm merely suggesting that should they adopt the Bond/Potter method, I see no reason why it cannot be pulled off. Especially when there are several decades of stories within the DC libraries.

Longevity isn't an issue here. Batman has proved time and time again he surpasses it.
 
Well I know when I've lost an argument. Still think it's a bad idea, though.
 
They might get burned out from trying to do something like this.
 
The "One film into 2 parts" thing doesn't need to happen for a Batman movie.
 
I would rather see new directors and actors come in than force Nolan and co. to rush two movies at once, especially if they don't want to be involved in a fourth film. I don't think what Nolan did with the series was so groundbreaking that another director cannot come along and emulate its feel in further installments. Kind of like what happened with the "Harry Potter" series after Chris Columbus left. The films had a distinctly different feel with each new director, but they also retained a lot of the same elements. I think the same will happen with this Batman series, because the last thing WB wants is to screw things up in the vein of Schumacher's Batman films. Plus, I thought it was a rule now that all of their DC properties had to be "dark" to a degree.
 
I think this is a horrible idea aside from having the villain torture small animals and children i think that should be the starting point of the next film and the creators should just work everything around that amazing premise.
 
I'm not doubting the foundation of the books and their existence being the primary reason why they can churn out the films so quickly. However, a story is a story, no matter the medium. HP has the advantage of not only the books being made concurrently, but they have different creative teams being ushered in under the command of another fixed higher command. It's a team effort that rotates with great ease because no one is creatively tired out.

With Batman, there's just Nolan and co. That's it. There's no one above them and there's no one working with them. Thus the product output is much less as a result. We're dealing with two very different production methods. I'm merely suggesting that should they adopt the Bond/Potter method, I see no reason why it cannot be pulled off. Especially when there are several decades of stories within the DC libraries.

Longevity isn't an issue here. Batman has proved time and time again he surpasses it.
Correction - I haven't lost yet.

Even though certain Batman comics are considered some of the best of the comic book medium, they do not have the fanbase that certain franchises like Harry Potter has (I feel like I've said that a million times). The difference between the Harry Potter franchise and the Batman franchise is this: Harry Potter has a large cast of characters and storylines that everyone knows. Batman has a large cast of characters that most don't know. If you ask 100 people on the street who Professor Umbridge is, you will get a better response than if you ask 100 people who Clayface is. And the fact that Batman has 70 years of stories to draw from isn't exactly a plus. Over those 70 years, nearly all of Batman's cast of characters has changed significantly, whereas Harry Potter's cast haven't changed much at all. Not only that, but there is no canon storyline that Batman clings to thanks to numerous retcons throughout the Dark Knight's 7 decade history. You can even look at other Batman media as an example. Of the numerous actors to play Batman over the years, very few of them have had similar portrayals of the title character. Even more dramatic is with the Joker. Cesar Romero's Joker is the polar opposite of Heath Ledger's, and Jack Nicholson's and Mark Hamill's are both somewhere in between, but still not similar to each other at all.

To sum up my point, Harry Potter has a set, static storyline, whereas Batman's is fluid and always changing. Therefore, the producers of Batman films would have to come up with new storylines for every movie done, whereas the producers of Harry Potter would simply have to decide what to cut from their source material.

And as to breaking up Batman 3 into two movies, that's simply ridiculous. That would just be Batman 3 and Batman 4.
 
Typical how people will just come to these boards and bash someone for posting an idea and saying how dumb it is and not giving a reason for why it is so. Yes splitting a film into two movies hasn't always worked in the past, ex. matrix and pirates. But those films were split mainly to just get another movie out there and make more money. And if that's what Warner would be trying to do then yes it would be a bad idea. But it did work in the case of kill bill, and they split that film just because the story was just too long and complex for one film.

I guarantee everyone would embrace the idea of splitting batman 3 into two films if Warner Bros announced that batman 3 and 4 would be filmed back to back and directed by chris nolan and then later nolan explains that, "David Goyer and I have come up a story that we are very excited about and the complexity of the story will force a very long runtime. Therefore we have decided in order to tell this story properly we will split the film into two parts." If Nolan said something along those lines I bet you wouldn't think it was a dumb idea. I know I would definitely be excited.

But lets not forget that Goyer originally planned for the Dark Knight's story to span over two films but they crammed it all into one and it turned out great so I highly doubt it will happen this time. But I certainly wouldnt mind if they did this (for the right reason of course).
 
Chris Nolan does things one film at a time. He's on record as saying this. Believe me, the Batman 3 storyline will not be forcefully continued into a fourth film.
 
Even though certain Batman comics are considered some of the best of the comic book medium, they do not have the fanbase that certain franchises like Harry Potter has (I feel like I've said that a million times). The difference between the Harry Potter franchise and the Batman franchise is this: Harry Potter has a large cast of characters and storylines that everyone knows. Batman has a large cast of characters that most don't know. If you ask 100 people on the street who Professor Umbridge is, you will get a better response than if you ask 100 people who Clayface is.
You're purposefully making it an unfair comparison. I'll do you one better. Get your top 5 or 10 Potter characters, and match 'em up with these guys:

Batman
Alfred
Joker
Penguin
Catwoman
Two-Face
Riddler
Robin
Batgirl
Commissioner Gordon

Guaranteed if you poll whatever random sample from the street, a significantly larger percentage will recognize those names than they do Potter's.

And the fact that Batman has 70 years of stories to draw from isn't exactly a plus. Over those 70 years, nearly all of Batman's cast of characters has changed significantly, whereas Harry Potter's cast haven't changed much at all.
The comparisons aren't valid. You're comparing 70 years of literature with 10. Moreover, my reference of the vast history is only to point out that the source material is able to provide a number of stories to take inspiration from. It's only fair considering you wanted to point out the 7 Potter books.

Not only that, but there is no canon storyline that Batman clings to thanks to numerous retcons throughout the Dark Knight's 7 decade history. You can even look at other Batman media as an example. Of the numerous actors to play Batman over the years, very few of them have had similar portrayals of the title character. Even more dramatic is with the Joker. Cesar Romero's Joker is the polar opposite of Heath Ledger's, and Jack Nicholson's and Mark Hamill's are both somewhere in between, but still not similar to each other at all.
What does have that have to do with anything? None of the batfilms have directly adapted a specific story. It's not a necessity to make a cinematic venture. TDK made a billion dollars off an original story. I'd say they're fine.

To sum up my point, Harry Potter has a set, static storyline, whereas Batman's is fluid and always changing. Therefore, the producers of Batman films would have to come up with new storylines for every movie done, whereas the producers of Harry Potter would simply have to decide what to cut from their source material.
Bond is on it's 23rd film. I don't need to point out how lucrative that franchise still is. Batman will be on it's 8th live-action movie, the last of which broke several records. Like I said, longevity isn't an issue here. If it was so difficult to churn original stories that the crowd reacts to, the character wouldn't be as prominent today.

Typical how people will just come to these boards and bash someone for posting an idea and saying how dumb it is and not giving a reason for why it is so. Yes splitting a film into two movies hasn't always worked in the past, ex. matrix and pirates. But those films were split mainly to just get another movie out there and make more money. And if that's what Warner would be trying to do then yes it would be a bad idea. But it did work in the case of kill bill, and they split that film just because the story was just too long and complex for one film.

I guarantee everyone would embrace the idea of splitting batman 3 into two films if Warner Bros announced that batman 3 and 4 would be filmed back to back and directed by chris nolan and then later nolan explains that, "David Goyer and I have come up a story that we are very excited about and the complexity of the story will force a very long runtime. Therefore we have decided in order to tell this story properly we will split the film into two parts." If Nolan said something along those lines I bet you wouldn't think it was a dumb idea. I know I would definitely be excited.

But lets not forget that Goyer originally planned for the Dark Knight's story to span over two films but they crammed it all into one and it turned out great so I highly doubt it will happen this time. But I certainly wouldnt mind if they did this (for the right reason of course).
Yeah, it's really as simple as that. Some stories are just too big for one movie. As I said originally, if the scope and narrative calls for it, why not? I don't get the sudden backlash towards the idea. Nolan would have you all eating out of his palms if he presented the announcement himself.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"