The Dark Knight Rises Top ten reason to make batman 3

[raybia]

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/articl...man-3-and-why-chris-nolan-needs-to-direct-it/

Excellent

 

[ND Irish]

that was good

 

[Melkay]

Ahh, Obama won, the humans come back to Earth in Wall-E and the Rope Of Silicon guys amend their mistake. Redemption exists.

 

[Melkay]

BTW, I thought the best reasons were the top three.

3. Because opening the film with Batman as the perceived villain is just too tasty to ignore.

2. Because you can’t abandon such a unique and realistic comic book superhero.

1. Because if Chris Nolan doesn’t do it Brett Ratner will.

 

[Anita18]

IMO, the first reason should be the only reason they need.

 

[Octoberist]

Number 6 was weird because a major action scene took place in Arkham in Batman Begins

 

[Brendan]

I had no idea the Japanese hated TDK.

 

[Anita18]

I had no idea the Japanese hated TDK.

It bombed in Japan. People were expecting about $10 million more, or...something. More than it was, anyway.

 

[Octoberist]

that's an exaggeration that they 'hated' Dark Knight..

The movie debuted at number 2, and dropped down afterwards. It didn't do so well, though I doubt that Dark Knight will be ignored by its legacy. The Japanese will catch on eventually...

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

I do not envy Christopher Nolan (aside from the fact that he's now one of the most powerful men in Hollywood and rolling in money).

He's got a steep mountain to climb, a mountain he built himself. That's the problem with striking lightning, you're expected to do it twice (or, for those of us who haven't forgotten about Begins, thrice).

 

[mrbrownie]

I do not envy Christopher Nolan (aside from the fact that he's now one of the most powerful men in Hollywood and rolling in money).

He's got a steep mountain to climb, a mountain he built himself. That's the problem with striking lightning, you're expected to do it twice (or, for those of us who haven't forgotten about Begins, thrice).

I'm with you brother!

 

[hatebox]

In a weird way, the fact that TDK was so massive gives Nolan a license to say 'you know what? I won't be able to top the *scale* of TDK, so I'll finish the story by making a very different Batman film.'

If it's obvious to audiences that he's done that as they watch the film then they won't mind a smaller film. It doesn't matter if it's different (in fact it should be different) as long as it's good in its own way.

 

[GregComicFan]

I disagree with the article when it says Nolan won't use a namebrand villain. No, I think it is certain we will see Riddler, Penguin, or Catwoman, or Talia, or some villain from the comics, in Batman 3. I understand some people would love to see a straight up "crime drama"/"film noir"/"detective film" where Batman just fights regular, every day criminals (bank robbers, serial killers, etc).....although that would be truly realistic, intimate, and sorta interesting..... it would be a GIGANTIC MISTAKE! To go from Joker/Two-Face to "Made-up, random bad guy" would be a total shock to the system.... it would be a slap in the face to the history of the comics, as if Nolan is saying no other Batman villain is cool enough to include in his trilogy (Riddler has always been a fav of mine).... and it won't happen because Nolan has always been progressing the "freaks take over Gotham" angle in BB and TDK, so to regress and go back to a non-freak, random criminal would be backtracking on the storyline and the themes Nolan has built up. so... yeah!

 

[Steyin]

I'll be the one to say it:

They forgot the reason: because he's the goddamn Batman.

 

[Anjow1060]

god damn right.

- Jow

 

[Doc Samson]

The only real reason I still want to see another (Besides the fact that, like Steyin says, he's the goddamn Batman) is because it really will be interesting to see how Nolan tackles the "Batman as villain" angle. Although it's always been implied that Batman isn't to be trusted, now for the first time there's concrete evidence (at least to the public) that Batman is a true, actual murderer. I'd love to see things go back to BB, where there was a horror-feel to Batman through the eyes of the crooks, only this time, it'll be the police

 

[Melkay]

PLEASE....

Can someone post that image made of photo-manips in the article, that had Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin making the bat-logo with the smoke of his cigar?

I know some people who will jump out of joy with that in the Openin Logo thread.

 

[hegele]

I think Nolan should make a deal with WB.

"I'll direct the third Batman film IF it's the last Batman film in my universe."

Even though Return of the Jedi wasn't nearly as good as the first two, if Star Wars ended with that one, it would be the greatest trilogy of all time. Not having a mediocre Brett Ratner instalment to taint the franchise would be worth doing a third.

 

[protoctista]

What an absurd waste of good work.

 

[CFE]

I think Nolan should make a deal with WB.

"I'll direct the third Batman film IF it's the last Batman film in my universe."

Even though Return of the Jedi wasn't nearly as good as the first two, if Star Wars ended with that one, it would be the greatest trilogy of all time. Not having a mediocre Brett Ratner instalment to taint the franchise would be worth doing a third.

I agree with this.

If Nolan doing a third film and rounding out his trilogy means that his take on the material, Bale, Oldman, Caine and Freeman are off limits to anyone else...that'd be fine with me.

That way, instead of someone attempting a second rate continuation of "Nolan's Batman" that same director could then do their own version of the characters...no strings attached.

 

[Melkay]

^ I second that.

 

[raybia]

BTW, I thought the best reasons were the top three.

3. Because opening the film with Batman as the perceived villain is just too tasty to ignore.

2. Because you can’t abandon such a unique and realistic comic book superhero.

1. Because if Chris Nolan doesn’t do it Brett Ratner will.

I would love to see a film where Batman is the perceived villian and knowing the GPD is ill equip to bring him in, the mayor commissions some train bounty hunters which bring Deadshot or Cain into the story as one of stories real villians.

 

[Rasputin911]

i shall be the one voice of reason standing against the tide:

-Batman can't be redeemed in Nolan's universe without exposing Dent and therefore breaking the city's faith/hope
-No villain will be able to top Heath's Joker (if one were able to, people would agree on the choice by now)
-Without a single powerful villain, we'll have to have multiple ones (think Spiderman 3)
-Third films usually are the worst in a trilogy
and finally...
-TDK had a great ending-Batman is now at the point where he usually is in the comics: a renegade whose sole establishment ally is Gordon (where into Frank Miller territory)

Feel free to rebuke

 

[Melkay]

Rebuke that? Easy task.

- Not true. Gotham can lose hope, but other events can make them regain it, especially after they begin to trust again in their TRUE protector. How to do that, I will leave it to Nolan.
- Not necessary. Like I said in the other thread...

I don't care about how great was the Joker... the stakes went high, and they can go higher. Ra's was a threat to the city... Joker threatened the city and got to Bruce's loved ones... now we need villains who cant do both things AND also threaten Bruce's life. We need dangers that will really push him to the edge, put his life at risk, so we can see the physical and mental toll the job has on him.

Again, let's make about Batman and not his villains. That's old-fashioned, Burtonist, cheap thinking.

- Yeah, yeah, I know what you mean... except both Begins and TDK had more than two villains in the film. Luckily, Nolan was smart enough to prevent them from stepping on each other's feet. He's familiar with the job, so... no big deal.
- Check out Protoctista's list of third part sequels. You'll regret your words.
and finally...
- You don't know what you're talking about... and you don't even read other people's posts...

If you stick to facts, seriality was already establised at the end of Begins in an even more effective way than in TDK. He and Fox gained control of Wayne Enterprises, Rachel told him they wouldn't be together as long as he kept on fighting his crusade, Wayne Manor was getting rebuilt with an improved batcave, he had his car, he had his bat-signal, and he had Gordon as a complete ally giving him police info and foreshadowing the coming of more freaks and complete escalation. Like the ending of Year One, that scene alone established definitive seriality... and they still made TDK. Neither you nor me can dare to guess what Nolan's artistic aspirations are, but some theme are abundant in his work and he's very familiar with them... themes like obsession, walking the edge of moral ambiguity, tormented male characters, etc..... and all that can be exploited, now more than ever, in a Batman film.

Nolan gave us a promise in both films from the lips of Alfred and Rachel: "You're getting lost into this monster of yours" and "The day won't come when you no longer need Batman". We didn't see that promise get fulfilled. Yes, he had to endure losses, but with so much happening, he didn't have time to sink in the effects of those losses. And it's not only the grief... grief is just a device. That, and all his new adversities... his new loner status... is enough to push him over the edge. Is he incorruptible? Will he get lost into the Batman persona? How will that affect him? It's not only about 'moping' for his dead parents. Is about finding himself a place in the new Gotham... a Gotham populated by dangerous and theatrical freaks. He doesn't have to be seen as something different from a criminal in the eyes of the citizens, but they need to realize he IS different from the villains he fights. Criminal or not, they need to set him apart. And let's be real... in a semi-realistic world, ONE MAN could not possible pose a CONSTANT opposition to the crime world without some kind of police support. We all saw TDK. We all know how useful it was for him.

Batman 3 possible premise - "Now that the city has a new kind of villains and a hero weakened by all kinds of adversities... how is he supposed to win?"

We all know Gordon said Batman could take it... the problem is, nobody in the audience knows how. And that's why most people want a sequel.

Because, to honor the truth, the Joker promised a new kind of villains... but he ended up in jail, and Harvey ended up dead. How is his legacy supposed to be carried on? I don't know. And that is a pretty good creative question for Nolan.

There you go. Three minute rebuke.



.... I'm working on my mark.

 

[Rasputin911]

Rebuke that? Easy task.

- Not true. Gotham can lose hope, but other events can make them regain it, especially after they begin to trust again in their TRUE protector. How to do that, I will leave it to Nolan.
- Not necessary. Like I said in the other thread...

- Yeah, yeah, I know what you mean... except both Begins and TDK had more than two villains in the film. Luckily, Nolan was smart enough to prevent them from stepping on each other's feet. He's familiar with the job, so... no big deal.
- Check out Protoctista's list of third part sequels. You'll regret your words.
and finally...
- You don't know what you're talking about... and you don't even read other people's posts...







There you go. Three minute rebuke.



.... I'm working on my mark.

trust me, if there were a suitable villain to replace J-man, there would be a general consensus by now