The Dark Knight Rises Make batman 3 into 2 seperate movies

[General_Obol]

Well Batgirl doesn't belong on the list. Even if people don't know who she is, hopefully common sense will kick in and they can say she's a Batman character. But for good measure I'll include a tenth character on the other list.

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

Harry Potter
Ron Weasley
Hermione Granger
Professor Dumbledore
Professor Snape
Voldemort
Bellatrix Lestrange
Sirius Black
Draco Malfoy
Hedwig

And for good measure I also didn't include any character with the same last name for the same reason I didn't include Batgirl. Or else there'd be a bunch of Weasley's on there.

But what's the difference between the two sets of characters? A large majority of the people who see another Batman movie aren't going to have read enough Batman comic books to get a feel for the character's mythos. In fact, they probably know the characters through the numerous Batman television shows and movies. On the other hand, people know Harry Potter's characters from the source. Therefore, less introduction for each character is needed in a Harry Potter movie.

And you're right - making a comparison to Harry Potter and Batman is quite unfair. That's actually the problem with looking to the Harry Potter franchise for guidance. They're just too different.

Furthermore, making a comparison to the Bond films is also unfair. Yes, there have been over 20 Bond films most of which are not based off the books by Ian Fleming. However, the plots are all the same. They just change the villain and the locale. They're always either after money or some kind of territory. They plots to a Bond film are practically mad libs. I will however make one qualification: I haven't seen any of the Daniel Craig films. However, those are only two examples from what is considered a rebooted franchise. However, counting those two would be the same as clumping Nolan's movies with the Burton/Schumacher films, which I'm not going to do.

The difference between Nolan's Batman films and the Bond films is that the Bond films are action driven while the Batman films are plot driven. That's actually what makes this series stand out from the other Batman media. You go to a Bond film expecting to see car chases, explosions, shootouts, hot women, and little else. Albeit many go to a Batman film hoping to see Batman beat up bad guys, but that's not the main point of the film. If the Batman films are made to be that way, they will lose what makes them so different from most other superhero films. You can see Spider-Man 3 as an example of what would happen.

 

[Mr. Earle]

You guys... dont you know the law of comics?
No matter what or who, Batman wins!

Superman vs Goku who wins? Batman of course.

lol

 

[Crook]

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

Harry Potter
Ron Weasley
Hermione Granger
Professor Dumbledore
Professor Snape
Voldemort
Bellatrix Lestrange
Sirius Black
Draco Malfoy
Hedwig

Ok, so now we've got a balanced list. So you're telling me if you go to random people on random streets, and say in context, "fictional character: _______", they'll be able to recognize more of yours over mines?

But what's the difference between the two sets of characters? A large majority of the people who see another Batman movie aren't going to have read enough Batman comic books to get a feel for the character's mythos. In fact, they probably know the characters through the numerous Batman television shows and movies. On the other hand, people know Harry Potter's characters from the source. Therefore, less introduction for each character is needed in a Harry Potter movie.

...what? One, you're straying from my original point of which character the general public recognizes more. Second, if the public recognizes the Batman characters more from other sources, then that means less introduction for them. It's only logical. Introductions are only imperative to provide information and background history to the audience. If said information is already known, there is no need to go through with it. Yes or no?

A comparable example, is Superman Returns. Not an origin movie in the least, but most people could follow it just fine because everyone knows where Superman comes from and how he came to be.

And you're right - making a comparison to Harry Potter and Batman is quite unfair. That's actually the problem with looking to the Harry Potter franchise for guidance. They're just too different.

You're mixing up the context of my topics. The Harry Potter series provides precedence for a successful multi-film series in a short period of time. The matter of source material is inconsequential, as these films are adaptations and do not rely strictly to the books.

Furthermore, making a comparison to the Bond films is also unfair. Yes, there have been over 20 Bond films most of which are not based off the books by Ian Fleming.

Actually, most of them are. But they don't follow the books too closely.

However, the plots are all the same. They just change the villain and the locale. They're always either after money or some kind of territory. They plots to a Bond film are practically mad libs. I will however make one qualification: I haven't seen any of the Daniel Craig films. However, those are only two examples from what is considered a rebooted franchise. However, counting those two would be the same as clumping Nolan's movies with the Burton/Schumacher films, which I'm not going to do.

You break down most films into generic descriptions, and I guarantee you'll end up with several similar narrative outlines. In fact, the critique you've described on Bond can be just as well applied to the Batman films.

The difference between Nolan's Batman films and the Bond films is that the Bond films are action driven while the Batman films are plot driven. That's actually what makes this series stand out from the other Batman media. You go to a Bond film expecting to see car chases, explosions, shootouts, hot women, and little else. Albeit many go to a Batman film hoping to see Batman beat up bad guys, but that's not the main point of the film. If the Batman films are made to be that way, they will lose what makes them so different from most other superhero films. You can see Spider-Man 3 as an example of what would happen.

Again, you're mixing up different topics of discussion. There is no correlation between x number of films, and the tonality/quality/direction of the product. None. They are completely separate entities. This is like saying: "if you make a trilogy, you're doomed to fail by the third film. Just look at 90% of trilogies made".

 

[General_Obol]

Ok, so now we've got a balanced list. So you're telling me if you go to random people on random streets, and say in context, "fictional character: _______", they'll be able to recognize more of yours over mines?

No, certain Batman characters are almost ubiquitously known. What I will say is that a greater percentage of Harry Potter characters will be recognized than Batman characters. If the character was used in any of Burton or Schumacher's films, s/he's going to be well known. Everyone else is for bat-fans strictly.

...what? One, you're straying from my original point of which character the general public recognizes more. Second, if the public recognizes the Batman characters more from other sources, then that means less introduction for them. It's only logical. Introductions are only imperative to provide information and background history to the audience. If said information is already known, there is no need to go through with it. Yes or no?

NO

Like I said, the stories and interpretations behind the characters are constantly changing. And just because the audience may know who the character is doesn't mean we need less introduction. Look at Batman Begins. That's an entire movie dedicated to re-introducing Batman himself, a character that's been around for 7 decades and well-known to the audience. The Dark Knight is the same way for The Dark Knight and Two-Face, which shows the necessity or having to re-introduce some characters. Since most of the movie's audience probably only knows of the character from Batman Forever, Nolan needed an entire film to differentiate the character from the schmaltzy Joker knock-off Schumacher gave us thirteen years prior.

A comparable example, is Superman Returns. Not an origin movie in the least, but most people could follow it just fine because everyone knows where Superman comes from and how he came to be.

Not really, as Superman Returns was intended to be a sequel to Superman II.

You're mixing up the context of my topics. The Harry Potter series provides precedence for a successful multi-film series in a short period of time. The matter of source material is inconsequential, as these films are adaptations and do not rely strictly to the books.

Yes, it does provide precedence in showing that there can be a successful multi-film series. However, the Batman franchise does not meet the same beginning criteria Harry Potter does. Batman does not have the same source material, nor the fans of the source material. The only people who can look to Harry Potter as a precedence for making a successful multi-film series are the people that are adapting The Chronicles of Narnia and Twilight. And we see how well those movies came out.

You break down most films into generic descriptions, and I guarantee you'll end up with several similar narrative outlines. In fact, the critique you've described on Bond can be just as well applied to the Batman films.

Most Bond films are cookie cutter takes of each other. Only recently have they started getting more interesting in their plots. And you can do the same to the Batman films, but you'd be missing the main points of the movies. The Bond films - not so much.

Again, you're mixing up different topics of discussion. There is no correlation between x number of films, and the tonality/quality/direction of the product. None. They are completely separate entities. This is like saying: "if you make a trilogy, you're doomed to fail by the third film. Just look at 90% of trilogies made".

But there is a correlation. By the third film, most franchises start to lose interest. In fact, this can sometimes even be seen by the second film in the franchise. I only used Spider-Man 3 as an example of a film from a successful franchise that strayed away from the director's original intent and vision so that it can be played up for audiences. Furthermore, Nolan's on record as stating he will only come back if he can find a necessary way to continue the story. He's barely even down with doing a third film, fearing redundancy in the plot. What would make you think he would so easily commit himself to a fourth?

 

[Crook]

No, certain Batman characters are almost ubiquitously known. What I will say is that a greater percentage of Harry Potter characters will be recognized than Batman characters. If the character was used in any of Burton or Schumacher's films, s/he's going to be well known. Everyone else is for bat-fans strictly.

Then I must ask where you're going with this.

NO

Like I said, the stories and interpretations behind the characters are constantly changing. And just because the audience may know who the character is doesn't mean we need less introduction. Look at Batman Begins. That's an entire movie dedicated to re-introducing Batman himself, a character that's been around for 7 decades and well-known to the audience. The Dark Knight is the same way for The Dark Knight and Two-Face, which shows the necessity or having to re-introduce some characters. Since most of the movie's audience probably only knows of the character from Batman Forever, Nolan needed an entire film to differentiate the character from the schmaltzy Joker knock-off Schumacher gave us thirteen years prior.

It's strictly a case-by-case basis. Did Alfred or Gordon need significant reintroductions? Again, where are you going with this? In every film, there will be an introduction of sorts for every character. Whether their history is explored thoroughly is up to the director. This has little to do with previous recognition. They'll do what they please in accordance to what's best for the movie.

Not really, as Superman Returns was intended to be a sequel to Superman II.

Correction, "vague" sequel as Singer put it. It was still a stand-alone movie that could be followed by those who hadn't seen the Donner movies. In any case it doesn't matter, as pointed out by my paragraph above.

Yes, it does provide precedence in showing that there can be a successful multi-film series. However, the Batman franchise does not meet the same beginning criteria Harry Potter does. Batman does not have the same source material, nor the fans of the source material. The only people who can look to Harry Potter as a precedence for making a successful multi-film series are the people that are adapting The Chronicles of Narnia and Twilight. And we see how well those movies came out.

Multi-film series do not require books. I don't know how much more simply I can put that. It is only easier because the stories have been laid out. That is not to say scripts cannot be handled in the same vein. Matrix 2/3 were shot back-to-back solely on one large story crafted by the Wachowski's.

As for fans; I feel this is a redundant argument. You will not convince me that Batman does not have a significant following. After TDK the franchise is more prominent in pop culture than it was since B89. I don't even need to take other franchises into account here because it's irrelevant to the point. Batman is popular, proven to have massive success with audiences, and is a huge money-maker. These are all facts.

Most Bond films are cookie cutter takes of each other. Only recently have they started getting more interesting in their plots. And you can do the same to the Batman films, but you'd be missing the main points of the movies. The Bond films - not so much.

Missing the main points of the movies? What does quantity of films have to do with that?

But there is a correlation. By the third film, most franchises start to lose interest. In fact, this can sometimes even be seen by the second film in the franchise. I only used Spider-Man 3 as an example of a film from a successful franchise that strayed away from the director's original intent and vision so that it can be played up for audiences.

This correlation in particular does not imply causation. As I've said, there is no direct relationship between x number of films, and the quality of those products. Creatively they are more susceptible due to being tired out, losing focus, studio interference, whathaveyou. But these are outside factors that have no connection with the film number.

Furthermore, Nolan's on record as stating he will only come back if he can find a necessary way to continue the story. He's barely even down with doing a third film, fearing redundancy in the plot. What would make you think he would so easily commit himself to a fourth?

I'm not. I haven't even mentioned him as a candidate for a multi-film proposal. I'm merely responding to a hypothetical not exclusive to the current creative team.

However, I will say Nolan is always very coy. Even Caine and Oldman have made fun of it in interviews because they suspect the same thing I do; he plays things close to the chest and doesn't want to corner himself by spouting off things that aren't concrete. Hence his general evasiveness. Heck, after BB was done he even mentioned he didn't plan on coming back for a sequel. Even though it was common knowledge he himself pitched an entire trilogy for WB before he got the job. It's obvious he has certain plans for this franchise. Though he's a smart man, he handles projects one at a time and won't divulge such ideas until it's put into fruition.

 

[Fresh Prince]

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.

Their is 2 more HP movoes left? Jeez! When will it end. Lol.

 

[Spidey 2007]

Their is 2 more HP movoes left? Jeez! When will it end. Lol.

Lol wow. ...

 

[General_Obol]

Then I must ask where you're going with this.

What I'm trying to say is that even though Batman may have characters that are more recognizable than the ones in Harry Potter, Harry Potter overall has more recognizable characters.

It's strictly a case-by-case basis. Did Alfred or Gordon need significant reintroductions? Again, where are you going with this? In every film, there will be an introduction of sorts for every character. Whether their history is explored thoroughly is up to the director. This has little to do with previous recognition. They'll do what they please in accordance to what's best for the movie.

Characters like Gordon and Alfred don't need the lengthy introductions because they're easy to explain characters. Alfred's a butler. Gordon's a cop. Not much more than that. Some of the other, more complex characters in the Batman universe will require a lengthy introduction. The introduction of sorts in each of the Harry Potter films is usually only about a scene long and still requires you to have read the book to fully understand what is going on with the character. Besides, with the exception of Snape and Malfoy, the Harry Potter characters are about as complex as a John Cage piece.

Correction, "vague" sequel as Singer put it. It was still a stand-alone movie that could be followed by those who hadn't seen the Donner movies. In any case it doesn't matter, as pointed out by my paragraph above.

And Superman Returns was also a let-down for its producers. So we should stop using a bad example.

Multi-film series do not require books. I don't know how much more simply I can put that. It is only easier because the stories have been laid out. That is not to say scripts cannot be handled in the same vein. Matrix 2/3 were shot back-to-back solely on one large story crafted by the Wachowski's.

You're still missing the point. I'm not saying they require books. What I'm saying is it needs a source material that most of the audience is well aware of. Most people that would see a Batman movie only the campier movies and television shows from the 1960's and 1990's. Most people who saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn't read Year One or The Killing Joke or The Long Halloween, whereas most of the people that see the Harry Potter movies read the Harry Potter books and most of the people who saw the Twilight movie read that book.

As for fans; I feel this is a redundant argument. You will not convince me that Batman does not have a significant following. After TDK the franchise is more prominent in pop culture than it was since B89. I don't even need to take other franchises into account here because it's irrelevant to the point. Batman is popular, proven to have massive success with audiences, and is a huge money-maker. These are all facts.

Batman does have a significant following. However, most of this following is due to the films and the television shows - not the comics. This is getting redundant.

Missing the main points of the movies? What does quantity of films have to do with that?

You completely misread what I wrote. The main point of Nolan's films are the characters and how they interact with each other. The main point of a Bond film are action sequences and hot women. That's why there are so many Bond films without the creative team getting tired out - they don't have to worry about the storyline.

This correlation in particular does not imply causation. As I've said, there is no direct relationship between x number of films, and the quality of those products. Creatively they are more susceptible due to being tired out, losing focus, studio interference, whathaveyou. But these are outside factors that have no connection with the film number.

You're contradicting yourself. You say there is a correlation, but no direct relationship. Those two things are exactly the same. And these do have something to do with the number of films, as this is how the studio gets tired out.

I'm not. I haven't even mentioned him as a candidate for a multi-film proposal. I'm merely responding to a hypothetical not exclusive to the current creative team.

However, I will say Nolan is always very coy. Even Caine and Oldman have made fun of it in interviews because they suspect the same thing I do; he plays things close to the chest and doesn't want to corner himself by spouting off things that aren't concrete. Hence his general evasiveness. Heck, after BB was done he even mentioned he didn't plan on coming back for a sequel. Even though it was common knowledge he himself pitched an entire trilogy for WB before he got the job. It's obvious he has certain plans for this franchise. Though he's a smart man, he handles projects one at a time and won't divulge such ideas until it's put into fruition.

Then you agree with me that he won't make a fourth film.

 

[Crook]

What I'm trying to say is that even though Batman may have characters that are more recognizable than the ones in Harry Potter, Harry Potter overall has more recognizable characters.

I'm having difficulty reading this statement. The two sound completely identical.

Characters like Gordon and Alfred don't need the lengthy introductions because they're easy to explain characters. Alfred's a butler. Gordon's a cop. Not much more than that. Some of the other, more complex characters in the Batman universe will require a lengthy introduction. The introduction of sorts in each of the Harry Potter films is usually only about a scene long and still requires you to have read the book to fully understand what is going on with the character. Besides, with the exception of Snape and Malfoy, the Harry Potter characters are about as complex as a John Cage piece.

You have proven my point, it's a case-by-case basis for each character and how their role is integral to the plot at hand. As for your Potter example, I have not read any of the books but have watched all the films. I assure you that despite anything that was left out in the film adaptations, I could follow all the stories just fine and have had no problems with understanding the characters. Also worthy to note that I did not feel like I was getting a dumbed-down interpretation due to these missing pieces.

And Superman Returns was also a let-down for its producers. So we should stop using a bad example.

Again, please stick with the topic at hand and mixing it to an irrelevant one. What you said has nothing to do with my sentence.

You're still missing the point. I'm not saying they require books. What I'm saying is it needs a source material that most of the audience is well aware of.

And I'm telling you it doesn't. Did Matrix 2/3 require previous source material?

Most people that would see a Batman movie only the campier movies and television shows from the 1960's and 1990's. Most people who saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn't read Year One or The Killing Joke or The Long Halloween, whereas most of the people that see the Harry Potter movies read the Harry Potter books and most of the people who saw the Twilight movie read that book.

Forgive me if I'm sounding like a broken record, but where is this going? We have had several Batman films now, none of which adhered to a comic book story. And certainly none that required the viewing audience to read beforehand. The films stand alone as themselves. I'm not sure why you're so adamant on the existence of the books, as if without them the films cannot be made.

Batman does have a significant following. However, most of this following is due to the films and the television shows - not the comics. This is getting redundant.

You're right, it is. A significant following is just that, why does it matter which medium stemmed the popularity?

You completely misread what I wrote. The main point of Nolan's films are the characters and how they interact with each other. The main point of a Bond film are action sequences and hot women. That's why there are so many Bond films without the creative team getting tired out - they don't have to worry about the storyline.

Regardless of the main points of the films, be it story or action, creative teams are no less protected from being tired out. Arguably the latest Bond flick with Craig was all about action and adventure with a thin plot....and these were the same exact people (barring the director) that were responsible for the brilliant CR. And just in case you were wondering, the director and scriptwriters all have said during QoS production that they wanted to focus on continuing with the story development in CR. So in both films, the focus was the same. With greatly varying results.

You're contradicting yourself. You say there is a correlation, but no direct relationship. Those two things are exactly the same. And these do have something to do with the number of films, as this is how the studio gets tired out.

Guess it wasn't obvious that the word wasn't being used literally. I should have put " " around correlation.

I still stand by my statement that there is no real relationship, more of an illusion created by the missteps of the ruling crowd; bad films. If I were to tell you that there is a correlation between crappy filmmaking and comic book films, as a result of there being more bad comic adaptations than there are good...would you agree with that assessment? Or would you state it's a misdirected claim as both factors are independent of each other?

Then you agree with me that he won't make a fourth film.

I'm not standing by any position on that matter. I wouldn't presume to know what he plans, especially when Nolan does not seem to juggle many projects.

 

[General_Obol]

I'm having difficulty reading this statement. The two sound completely identical.

My mistake. What I meant was Batman may have the more recognizable characters, but Harry Potter has the greater number of recognizable characters.

You have proven my point, it's a case-by-case basis for each character and how their role is integral to the plot at hand. As for your Potter example, I have not read any of the books but have watched all the films. I assure you that despite anything that was left out in the film adaptations, I could follow all the stories just fine and have had no problems with understanding the characters. Also worthy to note that I did not feel like I was getting a dumbed-down interpretation due to these missing pieces.

This is because, with the exception of Professor Snape, the Harry Potter plot and characters have the depth of a kiddie pool. Batman's characters are different, and have been getting deeper with every decade.

And I'm telling you it doesn't. Did Matrix 2/3 require previous source material?

The Matrix: Revolution was a commercial failure and both films were critical failures.

Forgive me if I'm sounding like a broken record, but where is this going? We have had several Batman films now, none of which adhered to a comic book story. And certainly none that required the viewing audience to read beforehand. The films stand alone as themselves. I'm not sure why you're so adamant on the existence of the books, as if without them the films cannot be made.

I'm only talking about the current franchise. The previous movies weren't that good. The current franchise doesn't require the audience to have read because they take an entire film to introduce an important character.

You're right, it is. A significant following is just that, why does it matter which medium stemmed the popularity?

Because the difference is that with franchises like Harry Potter, the franchise's source is what created the popularity. As for Batman, an off-shoot created the popularity.

Regardless of the main points of the films, be it story or action, creative teams are no less protected from being tired out. Arguably the latest Bond flick with Craig was all about action and adventure with a thin plot....and these were the same exact people (barring the director) that were responsible for the brilliant CR. And just in case you were wondering, the director and scriptwriters all have said during QoS production that they wanted to focus on continuing with the story development in CR. So in both films, the focus was the same. With greatly varying results.

I haven't seen the Craig films, so I can't say much about them.

I still stand by my statement that there is no real relationship, more of an illusion created by the missteps of the ruling crowd; bad films. If I were to tell you that there is a correlation between crappy filmmaking and comic book films, as a result of there being more bad comic adaptations than there are good...would you agree with that assessment? Or would you state it's a misdirected claim as both factors are independent of each other?

Yes, I would believe that. That's what a correlation is. It allows you to predict the outcome of a certain event by looking at the history of similar events.

 

[Crook]

My mistake. What I meant was Batman may have the more recognizable characters, but Harry Potter has the greater number of recognizable characters.

Guess we'll just have to disagree here. It's hard not being biased as a batfan, but I honestly feel that there are much more characters in the Batman mythos that are recognizable, be it by name or aesthetics.

The Matrix: Revolution was a commercial failure and both films were critical failures.

As with your comment on SR, this is irrelevant to what we're talking about. Matrix 2/3 did not fail because they were back-to-back films or had no previous source material, they failed because it did not connect with the audiences as well as the first. Simple as that.

I'm only talking about the current franchise. The previous movies weren't that good. The current franchise doesn't require the audience to have read because they take an entire film to introduce an important character.

Joker had absolutely no introduction and was arguably the biggest character of TDK who attracted the biggest positive response.

Because the difference is that with franchises like Harry Potter, the franchise's source is what created the popularity. As for Batman, an off-shoot created the popularity.

You're not answering the question. I realize what the difference is, my question is why does it matter. Popularity and success are no different when it's in books or on a big-screen. They yield the same exact results.

I haven't seen the Craig films, so I can't say much about them.

You don't have to, just read the reviews or the general reaction from audiences and fans. CR was the far superior film in almost every way and yet the production teams were nearly identical with no shift in creative direction.

Yes, I would believe that. That's what a correlation is. It allows you to predict the outcome of a certain event by looking at the history of similar events.

Correlation involves interdependence between two or more variables. That is not the case with my example or the general discussion we've been having. We can make a list of all the bad/terrible comic book flicks and match them against the good/great ones. Were we to isolate what makes up the quality of these products, none would involve the inherent existence of being a genre pic or a comic book adaptation.

So what does this mean? It means these factors exist independent of each other. Thus there cannot be a correlation.

 

[General_Obol]

Guess we'll just have to disagree here. It's hard not being biased as a batfan, but I honestly feel that there are much more characters in the Batman mythos that are recognizable, be it by name or aesthetics.


As with your comment on SR, this is irrelevant to what we're talking about. Matrix 2/3 did not fail because they were back-to-back films or had no previous source material, they failed because it did not connect with the audiences as well as the first. Simple as that.


Joker had absolutely no introduction and was arguably the biggest character of TDK who attracted the biggest positive response.


You're not answering the question. I realize what the difference is, my question is why does it matter. Popularity and success are no different when it's in books or on a big-screen. They yield the same exact results.


You don't have to, just read the reviews or the general reaction from audiences and fans. CR was the far superior film in almost every way and yet the production teams were nearly identical with no shift in creative direction.


Correlation involves interdependence between two or more variables. That is not the case with my example or the general discussion we've been having. We can make a list of all the bad/terrible comic book flicks and match them against the good/great ones. Were we to isolate what makes up the quality of these products, none would involve the inherent existence of being a genre pic or a comic book adaptation.

So what does this mean? It means these factors exist independent of each other. Thus there cannot be a correlation.

1. The Matrix films failed because they cannot connect to the audience. This is an unwanted side-effect of churning two movies out at once.
2. The Joker didn't have an introduction because his enigmatic nature is an integral part of his character. He has no history, he just comes in and causes chaos. Something along those lines was in most reviews of The Dark Knight
3. There is still a correlation. You're confusing correlation with causation.

 

[Crook]

1. The Matrix films failed because they cannot connect to the audience. This is an unwanted side-effect of churning two movies out at once.

It was a side-effect of not crafting something the audience wanted. Period.

Evidently churning out two movies with close release dates did absolutely no harm to the massive success of Pirates 2 and 3. Very similar production/release schedules to Matrix 2 and 3. Completely opposite results. Hmm.

2. The Joker didn't have an introduction because his enigmatic nature is an integral part of his character. He has no history, he just comes in and causes chaos. Something along those lines was in most reviews of The Dark Knight

Once again proving my point that character introductions cannot be generalized into one rule, and is handled on a case-by-case basis.

3. There is still a correlation. You're confusing correlation with causation.

I'll stop writing and let you do the talking. You can end this once and for all by explaining how and why film quality is inherently tied to the film number. Or with my example, how quality is dictated by the genre of the film. Either one is fine.

Concretely prove those variables are interdependent and this argument can rest.

 

[General_Obol]

It was a side-effect of not crafting something the audience wanted. Period.

Evidently churning out two movies with close release dates did absolutely no harm to the massive success of Pirates 2 and 3. Very similar production/release schedules to Matrix 2 and 3. Completely opposite results. Hmm.


Once again proving my point that character introductions cannot be generalized into one rule, and is handled on a case-by-case basis.


I'll stop writing and let you do the talking. You can end this once and for all by explaining how and why film quality is inherently tied to the film number. Or with my example, how quality is dictated by the genre of the film. Either one is fine.

Concretely prove those variables are interdependent and this argument can rest.

First of all, the second two Pirates films were still critical failures. And that's all I'm saying about that.

Film quality is tied to film number in two ways. First, the more films released, the more saturated the market becomes. Eventually, people get tired of seeing these movies and move on to see something else. Second is due to creative fatigue. The creative teams behind most franchises eventually begin to run out of ideas on how to use the same characters in different plots. So what they eventually do is re-hash old plots and old characters and call it a new story.

 

[Crook]

First of all, the second two Pirates films were still critical failures. And that's all I'm saying about that.

Don't backpedal now. These were your words:

The Matrix films failed because they cannot connect to the audience. This is an unwanted side-effect of churning two movies out at once.

Critics have nothing to do with the box office receipts which is very much dictated by the masses who pay for these tickets. By this regard, the POTC films were all a success because they connected with the audiences enough to be rewarded with large sums of money.

Film quality is tied to film number in two ways. First, the more films released, the more saturated the market becomes. Eventually, people get tired of seeing these movies and move on to see something else.

They move onto something else when the films start sucking or there's little incentive to go out and see the movie. Studios know this, hence why they'll stop a franchise dead in it's tracks once they see negative or indifferent reactions. This has nothing to do with film numbers and everything to do with interest in the franchise. Potter has went on as long as it did because people keep seeing it droves. LOTR is continuing the franchise because there is an audience for it. Narnia was on it's way to do the same thing, but once the sequel underperformed....surprise, the future of the remaining 5 films isn't so secure anymore.

Another example; Superman Returns was a disappointment. Sequel has yet to be greenlit despite featuring the most famous comic book hero of all time. Batman and Bond were in similar situations during the mid and late 90s. The last films were critical/financial failures and the studios smartly put the franchises on hold until they knew what the audience would want. Cue in their respective reboots which garnered them great returns.

Second is due to creative fatigue. The creative teams behind most franchises eventually begin to run out of ideas on how to use the same characters in different plots. So what they eventually do is re-hash old plots and old characters and call it a new story.

Creative fatigue, laziness, or incompetence can set in at any time of a film's production. If it's a case of "we're (insert #) films in how do we make another", then that's the fault of the team itself, not the film number. You take out that team and replace them with talented new-bloods. Tell them to continue the franchise and I bet they'll be able to do it with no hitch. It's been successfully done half a dozen times with Bond, and Star Trek just did it this past year.

TDK: 8th theatrical Batman film
CR: 22nd theatrical Bond film
ST: 11th theatrical Star Trek film

Pretty high film count. And they're arguably the best of their respective series. Evidently this supposed correlation between film quality and film number is faulty and sporadic at best.

 

[joelman]

Reading through this id like to say well done to Crook and General, unlike other posters you have both made your point by backing it up with solid reasoning. I quite enjoyed reading through this so thanks.

 

[MetalGear7]

Reading through this id like to say well done to Crook and General, unlike other posters you have both made your point by backing it up with solid reasoning. I quite enjoyed reading through this so thanks.

Hey Joelman if you have nothing important to say don't say anything

 

[Mindreaper21]

Apparently you must not realize how much effort needs to go into making a third movie with two parts. Its easy for Harry Potter because the book was already written. Since Nolan is making his own story, it would be much more stress for him to deliver these great films back to back....So, my answer is no. Besides, I can't even imagine a third movie with two parts and there's no Joker. Nolan wouldn't replace Heath, and thats the smart thing to do.

 

[firstclassclown]

Wasn't TDK supposed to be the first part of a two part story? It would be very nice and even more Nolan Bat-flick's to look forward to