The Dark Knight Michael Jai White Cast in TDK

[ANTOINE X]

I m really happy for Mr Jai White . The guy has charisma and is so underestimated. They took tyrese for luke cage instead of Jai!That s a mistake! Now will get the proof of that in TDK.

 

[Mr. Socko]

Yes, because coming up with new and original ideas is always a bad thing. I mean, hell, any villain created after Bob Kane's death should be discounted. Actually, hell, let's even discount the Joker because he didn't arrive on the scene until 1940. Batman should just have fought the Chemical Syndicate and solved the same case over and over again for 70 years.

Actually, screw it, Batman was just a Superman knock-off, Bob Kane and Bill Finger should never have even created him.

Yeah we all remember Sam Raimi's "New Goblin" and Bryan Singer's "Jason." Hell, even Rachel was the worst thing about Begins...

OR... we can assume that new ideas are useful and good.

Nah, the former sounds better. I like to live dangerously.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Yeah we all remember Sam Raimi's "New Goblin"

Well, Harry was Green Goblin 2 in the comics. But everybody hated the Green Goblin costume from Spider-Man 1, so Raimi decided to tone it down. LOL. Personally I think he was ****ing with us all.

Nah, the former sounds better. I like to live dangerously.

Fair enough, but I trust my point is made? All ideas are new once.

 

[Mr. Socko]

New stuff smells bad

 

[Saint]

Yes, because coming up with new and original ideas is always a bad thing. I mean, hell, any villain created after Bob Kane's death should be discounted. Actually, hell, let's even discount the Joker because he didn't arrive on the scene until 1940. Batman should just have fought the Chemical Syndicate and solved the same case over and over again for 70 years.

Actually, screw it, Batman was just a Superman knock-off, Bob Kane and Bill Finger should never have even created him.

OR... we can assume that new ideas are useful and good.

This is an oversimplification. Being as this is an adaptation, it is hardly unreasonable for people to prefer existing characters be used, rather than new ones.

As I always say, comics have the luxury of freedom, and films do not. No less than three regular Batman comics come out monthly, so there's no reason not to make up new characters left and right, or explore new avenues, or make crazy changes. If the new characters or changes don't succeed, they are easily rolled back. If they do succeed, even the fans who don't like them can simply read different Batman books.

Batman movies, on the other hand, are far more rare. We get three a decade--maybe--and after those three, who knows? It could be ten years before we get more. Accordingly, the fans take an understandable "no nonsense" position. We don't want to waste these rare opportunities on new characters, or crazy new ideas. For one, each new character is a risk: there's a chance this new character will blow chunks. Secondly, there is almost always an existing--and popular--comic book character that could fit the role of this new character. It's pretty reasonable for someone to say "Character X should be used instead of this new character," because if Character X is not used there exists a very real chance that Character X will never be used, or at least not used for a very long time.

To put it simply, we would rather see what we know and love on screen, because who knows when we'll get another chance?

It's unfortunate, yeah, but true. Suppose the Nolan brothers had an idea for an original villain. Would this villain be awesome? Probably, yes. But would it be a good idea? For most fans, no. We want this rare film opportunity to be used to bring characters we know to screen. By the same token, I have no doubt a film based on Superman: Red Son would rule the universe, but I understand why hardcore Superman fans (which I am not) would oppose such an idea. They can't waste these rare chances on an Elseworlds story; they want the real deal.

I am of the position that new ideas are best introduced in the comics, because 1) the comics are a low-risk environment where mistakes are easily rectified, 2) comics are plentiful, so nobody is inconvenienced by new ideas or approaches--they can just go read a different Batman book, and 3) comics are the optimum place for new ideas and characters to become popular, making transition to film much more desirable for fans.

I am certainly aware that you--or others--may disagree with this position, and that you may want Batman films to be used as a vehicle for new ideas and characters. This is perfectly understandable and I don't mean to say it's a bad thing. Sometimes I think like this, too, but my purism usually gets the better of me. I've made this post because I think it's silly to be so dismissive towards an adherence to existing characters.

 

[JosephMaximus]

I'm much happier with this casting

 

[Mr. Socko]

Ah, nicely said Saint m'boy.

 

[Shoemeister]

New stuff smells bad

Not cars!

BTW, Socko... did you ever check out Heath Ledger in Candy?

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

It's unfortunate, yeah, but true. Suppose the Nolan brothers had an idea for an original villain. Would this villain be awesome? Probably, yes. But would it be a good idea? For most fans, no.

You never know. People seemed to really like Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm, an original creation (despite minor inspiration from The Reaper, a commonly unknown character himself). MOTP is the favorite Bat-film of a lot of people.

And greatly altering a character works almost the same way; I'm glad Burton put his Penguin, practically an original character, in Returns, instead of his dry, uninteresting comic counterpart.

 

[Crook]

You never know. People seemed to really like Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm, an original creation (despite minor inspiration from The Reaper, a commonly unknown character himself). MOTP is the favorite Bat-film of a lot of people.

Well let's not forget that Joker played a key role in the film as well. In fact I'd say Phantasm, had very little screentime.

 

[Saint]

You never know. People seemed to really like Andrea Beaumont/Phantasm, an original creation (despite minor inspiration from The Reaper, a commonly unknown character himself). MOTP is the favorite Bat-film of a lot of people.

Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.

And greatly altering a character works almost the same way; I'm glad Burton put his Penguin, practically an original character, in Returns, instead of his dry, uninteresting comic counterpart.

There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.

 

[Juanigi]

Gamble or Steven Sharp aka The Gambler?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gambler_(comics)

"Steven Sharp V is the grandson of Steven Sharp III, the original Gambler. He took over his grandfather's mantle as the Gambler. While keeping his identity as the Gambler hidden and masquerading as the Joker, he reorganized and reoutfitted the Royal Flush Gang."

!!!

 

[Katsuro]

I'm glad White got the part and not Banner. But I wish they had made him a character from the comic books instead of making up a character like they did with Rachel.

Nolan, there's nearly 7 decades of material on Batman. Surely you can find enough characters and story in there to adapt instead of making other things up and pulling non-comic characters out of nowhere.

I'd rather them bring in a new character who fits the story than have them change an existing one to fit.

Obviously Nolan wants to show various gangs going to war. We have Maroni's classic style mafia, this Eastern European gang, Scarecrow's gang of freaks, and Gamble's gang of either gangsta-types, or possibly the Rastafarians mentioned in a set report. So, if Nolan wants a Rastafarian gang, it means either creating a new character to lead this gang, or adapting an existing one to do so.

Are you telling me you'd rather they turn Penguin or Riddler into a Rasta than see some new character?

I'd prefer to see this Gamble guy have a couple minutes of screentime, go to jail, and never be mentioned again, than to see them randomly shoehorn a classic into a part he doesn't belong in.

 

[The Kid]

Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.


There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.

but the nipples added sex appeal for the ladies

 

[Darknightnomis]

NCie casting. I'm glad to see soe of the plot twist in this movie with a true gang war trying t ot take over. The Freaks versus the gansters, very Long Halloween.

Personally I liked the Spawn movie. Cheesy yes, but a pretty entertaining movie for the most part.

And I thought John Leguizomo (sp?) as "Clown" was right on the money.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Well, that's not quite the same situation. We're talking about BTAS, which had a lengthy and successful run featuring the nearly the entire catalogue of Batman villains. As such, there was not much cause for fans to complain; all their favourites had been done, so they were more receptive to seeing something new. Moreover, Timm and company had, by that point, earned a free pass for life: as far as fans are concerned, their body of work means they always get the benefit of the doubt. Quality is never a concern with them, you just know it's going to be good.

Obviously Timm and Dini had a leg up in having a whole series to back them up, but for the fans of Begins, I think there's enough to give Nolan the same benefit of the doubt. He came into a franchise left cold and dead and breathed new life into it using only unknown (to the public) villains. Yeah, he made up some characters like Rachel and Finch, but you can easily see why. Finch died to make room for Harvey, and Rachel served a story and character purpose which wouldn't have fit any pre-existing comic love interests, without altering said character (which would have also caused fans to whine). He gets points for me just for using Zzasz instead of Random Psycho #1, Falcone (and soon Maroni) instead
of Random Crime Boss #1 (see Carl Grissom) and even using the name Ducard as an alias for Ra's. I think we should wait to see TDK before wanting original characters to be replaced with existing ones. Jai White and company probably get wiped out by the Joker; I would much rather that happen to new characters than someone like Black Mask.

There are absolutely exceptions, compromises, and "wiggle room" so to speak. I was only speaking in general terms. I liked Burton's Penguin and therefore didn't mind the change. Conversely, I recognize others may feel the opposite, and I totally get that. I suppose somebody, somewhere out there thought the changes made to Two-Face were a good thing. I, on the other hand, think they were vomit-inducing. I want to see the real Two-Face, so I don't think it's unreasonable for others to want to see the real Penguin.

These movies are treated as a business, and those in charge hope that the series can last as long as possible (with or without the same creative team). As such, I don't expect them to throw everything but the kitchen sink in the first (or second) movie. If they choose to use an original character for filler instead of someone like Black Mask, then the possibility to use Black Mask in a more prominent role down the line is still open. It's good business (and can also, surprisingly, make for good storytelling).

 

[Keyser Sushi]

This is an oversimplification. Being as this is an adaptation, it is hardly unreasonable for people to prefer existing characters be used, rather than new ones.

But Saint, Saint, Saint... for a small role with five minutes of screen time, if they used an existing character, wouldn't you complain? Wouldn't you be crying that this beloved old character was given short shrift? "I didn't get to sympathise with him as a character," you'd say. "If he didn't fit in Nolan's world he shouldn't have used him," you'd say.

Who can win?

As I always say, comics have the luxury of freedom, and films do not. No less than three regular Batman comics come out monthly, so there's no reason not to make up new characters left and right, or explore new avenues, or make crazy changes. If the new characters or changes don't succeed, they are easily rolled back. If they do succeed, even the fans who don't like them can simply read different Batman books.

So the characters in Batman '89 - Alicia, Carl Grissom, Bob the Goon, Brutali, Vinnie, etc etc etc shouldn't have been there because they're made up? It should have been Rupert Thorne, Sal Maroni, and Carmine Falcone? And none of them would survive the movie? Or is it better to make up characters for situations like that?

Batman movies, on the other hand, are far more rare. We get three a decade--maybe--and after those three, who knows? It could be ten years before we get more. Accordingly, the fans take an understandable "no nonsense" position. We don't want to waste these rare opportunities on new characters, or crazy new ideas. For one, each new character is a risk: there's a chance this new character will blow chunks. Secondly, there is almost always an existing--and popular--comic book character that could fit the role of this new character. It's pretty reasonable for someone to say "Character X should be used instead of this new character," because if Character X is not used there exists a very real chance that Character X will never be used, or at least not used for a very long time.

So having five minutes of a beloved character and then having him get killed by the Joker is preferable to saving him for a time when he might be put to more effective use?

I am certainly aware that you--or others--may disagree with this position, and that you may want Batman films to be used as a vehicle for new ideas and characters. This is perfectly understandable and I don't mean to say it's a bad thing. Sometimes I think like this, too, but my purism usually gets the better of me. I've made this post because I think it's silly to be so dismissive towards an adherence to existing characters.

Films by default are basically "elseworlds" tales. They're NEVER going to match the comics 100%. It's not doable. It's a re-telling of the story. The timing and continuity of a story changes to fit into a two-hour time slot. So the way to approach every film is that it's an Elseworlds film.

Now, if Nolan were going to pass up using any of the classic villains, or give an invented character the spotlight, I would complain. But we're talking about a small supporting role - not to mention a potentially interesting role for a black man, which is much needed in Batman's world since his cast is so predominantly honkified. I guess I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't make up supporting characters once in a while.


EDIT: SHEE-zus, I was just sitting here thinking about it, and it's true... it's as though Gotham City has a screening process for people they let in: you have to be white and psychotic.

I mean there's a woman in Gotham City named the "Black Canary," and she couldn't BE any more Aryan! What about Black Mask? ANOTHER blond-haired honkie! Good Christ!

 

[Dark Knight]

Hope we get to see Bale and White in some hand to hand high octane and intense fight scenes! That would be sweet!

 

[TheBatman072]

I mean there's a woman in Gotham City named the "Black Canary," and she couldn't BE any more Aryan! What about Black Mask? ANOTHER blond-haired honkie! Good Christ!

Is he? I could have sworn he was European or something.

 

[Silver Souper]

I m really happy for Mr Jai White . The guy has charisma and is so underestimated. They took tyrese for luke cage instead of Jai!That s a mistake! Now will get the proof of that in TDK.

wow. i think he's an awful actor

 

[Silver Souper]

they would've been much better off casting one of the actors from The Wire like Wood Harris (barksdale) or Edris Elba (stringer bell) or motha fricken Omar himself Michael K Williams. REAL ACTORS

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Is he? I could have sworn he was European or something.

How does being European make Black Mask less of a honkie? He's still white!

 

[Silver Souper]

How does being European make Black Mask less of a honkie? He's still white!

THE SUSH! Welcome back my friend!

 

[Keyser Sushi]

THE SUSH! Welcome back my friend!

Thank you, my good man.

 

[Saint]

But Saint, Saint, Saint... for a small role with five minutes of screen time, if they used an existing character, wouldn't you complain?

That depends. It worked for Zsasz. I love Zsasz, and while I would have preferred he see a larger role, I would rather him have his two minutes screentime than never be seen in this franchise at all. I also recognize it won't work for everyone (I would hate to see Black Mask wasted on a cameo). But you may notice that the name "Gamble" appeared nowhere in my post. That is because I am not speaking of this role specifically, I was only speaking to your comments about new ideas.

Wouldn't you be crying that this beloved old character was given short shrift? "I didn't get to sympathise with him as a character," you'd say. "If he didn't fit in Nolan's world he shouldn't have used him," you'd say.

Are you sure? I'd only be saying the latter if the character was ruined during his cameo role. The former I might not say at all: certain characters I am not interested in sympathizing with. I want to understand a character. Whether they are deserving of sympathy is something that follows from that. Understanding is easily established, even in small roles, by competent writers.

Who can win?

Someone who is very careful.

So the characters in Batman '89 - Alicia, Carl Grissom, Bob the Goon, Brutali, Vinnie, etc etc etc shouldn't have been there because they're made up? It should have been Rupert Thorne, Sal Maroni, and Carmine Falcone? And none of them would survive the movie? Or is it better to make up characters for situations like that?

You talk as if I am speaking in absolutes, but I am not. Would I have been upset if Grissom was replaced by Rupert Thorne and got whacked? Not really. Somebody else, though, would be upset and I get that. But In general I suspect such a move would have been approved. Falcone's situation was similar, after all, and everyone approved of that.

So having five minutes of a beloved character and then having him get killed by the Joker is preferable to saving him for a time when he might be put to more effective use?

The problem here is that you assume he'll be used later. This is probably not true.

Films by default are basically "elseworlds" tales. They're NEVER going to match the comics 100%. It's not doable. It's a re-telling of the story. The timing and continuity of a story changes to fit into a two-hour time slot. So the way to approach every film is that it's an Elseworlds film.

Not, not really. A much more accurate term would be a continuity revamp. As usual, it is all about degrees: a continuity revamp is retconning the original history and adjusting it. This is what films do. A Elseworlds tale is Batman getting a Green Lantern ring, Steel being unrelated to Superman, and Catwoman being some woman who comes back from the dead and sniffs catnip. In other words, while there will always be a need for adjustment, the closer to the comics the better.

Now, if Nolan were going to pass up using any of the classic villains, or give an invented character the spotlight, I would complain. But we're talking about a small supporting role - not to mention a potentially interesting role for a black man, which is much needed in Batman's world since his cast is so predominantly honkified. I guess I just don't see any reason why they shouldn't make up supporting characters once in a while.

Please find the place where I said "They should not make up supporting characters." I am only explaining why a desire to adhere to existing characters is understandable. Personally, I fall somewhere in between because I approach it on a case-by-case basis (Finch good, Rachel bad, Grissom acceptable but unnecessary).