The Dark Knight When did this become a trilogy

[L0ngsh0t]

I thought I read somewhere that there are talks of about 6-7 Spiderman movies. Sounds cool and everything, but I think Jake Gyllenhaal should replace Tobey as Peter, and have a new Mary Jane. There are also talks about 3 Batman movies and three Supes movies, and a possible Batman and Superman movie, Batman versus Superman etc after it. I think I would like to see four Batman films, with the fourth one taking place 5-10 years after the third one, making Batman about 40 or so. I want them to introduce Dick, Ibn, etc. The movies don't have to follow comics, so we could have Helena Kyle as Bruce's daughter. Batgirl, Robin/Nightwing, Catwoman. I would actually like to see a Nightwing movie or show. Could be interesting.

Well, imo they are bringing gwen stacy to replace MJ as the new love interest, some think Gwen will die, because of her comic book roots, but I think MJ will die and gwen will replace her.

 

[misteranderson4]

nolan and bale will leave after 3, ie bb tdk and whatever tdk 2 is.....but wb will milk this til they have a flop

i like the whole joker / two face 2 movie story arc idea that might happen

the only hope for a post nolan bats movies is if they do a knightfall trilogy/series

 

[Batman the 6th]

Anyone think it would be interesting if Helena Wayne or Ibn was intorduced, even as little kid(s)? I know Helena id Pre-Crisis, but after seeing Brids of Prey, I wanted to see more live action with her.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Replacement directors can sometimes do us proud. Remember, James Cameron was a replacement director in the Alien franchise

Yeah, but the second Alien movie was crap and destroyed everything (suspense, horror) that made the first one work just to show retarted marines shooting around.

 

[Darknightnomis]

IF a PROVEN fact that the 4th movie of any franchises (except James Bond movies his 4th being 'ThunderBall') will be the one that is Loathe and Hated by the fans becasue it doesn't live up to the preceding 3.

Some Examples:

Rocky 4
Superman IV: The quest for Peace
Batman and Robin
Alien 4 (resurrection)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Star Wars:The Phantom Menace
Conquest for the Planet of the Apes
Police Academy 4 (and for that matter 5,6,7,8,etc.)

Therefore, it's safer to stop a series at 3.t:

 

[Crooklyn]

Wonderful logic.

 

[Ronny Shade]

ronny u rock

ya god dam rite

 

[Ronny Shade]

Yeah, but the second Alien movie was crap and destroyed everything (suspense, horror) that made the first one work just to show retarted marines shooting around.

Different, not worse

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Different, not worse

maybe. but I simply don´t enjoy war movies that much (and that´s what Aliens is) the first one was a superb horror flick (and I adore those) so personally I feel like the second movie butcherd everything Scott´s Alien stands for.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Yeah, but if they'd made another straight horror flick with Alien 2, it would've come off as flat and a pale imitation of the genius that was the first film.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

double post, sorry

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

another one...

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Yeah, but if they'd made another straight horror flick with Alien 2, it would've come off as flat and a pale imitation of the genius that was the first film.

so basically you´re saying: because the realism aspect in BB and the concentration on the Bruce Wayne character worked so well, we should put Batman in a spacesuit and let him fight a couple of interstellar amazons in TDK...

 

[raybia]

i am just wondering, every now and again i see someone mention trilogy...that kind of talk bothers me, mostly because i hate trilogys. they tend to leave me wanting more...Xmen, Star Wars(till 1999)...

That because many of them have weak endings.

plus with restarting the batman series i am explecting more for this series than the last...same with superman

Well the last Batman series cannot be called a trilogy IMO and not because there were 4 total previous movies. Just because three movies are made about a character doesn't necessary constitutes a trilogy.

A trilogy is a set of three works of art, usually literature or film, that are connected and can generally be seen as a single work as well as three individual ones.

The first two Batman movies were connected but the 3rd one IMO was not.

Nolan's eventually 3 movies will be considered a trilogy because it can be looked at as a single work.

This can even be the case when three movies appear within a block of movies about the same subject.

i.e. [[The Star Trek trilogy]] (Spanning Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan through Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home)


Other examples of great trilogies include:


The Apu trilogy (1955-59), directed by Satyajit Ray and based on the works of author Bibhutibhushan Bandopadhyay

Back to the Future Trilogy (1985-90), directed by Robert Zemeckis

The Dollars Trilogy (1964-66), directed by Sergio Leone

The Godfather trilogy (1972-90), directed by Francis Ford Coppola

The Indiana Jones Trilogy (1981 - 89), directed by Steven Spielberg

The Lord of the Rings (2001-03), directed by Peter Jackson

The Mariachi trilogy (1992-2003), directed by Robert Rodríguez

The Qatsi trilogy (1983-2002), directed by Godfrey Reggio

The original Star Wars trilogy (1977-1983) by George Lucas

Three Colors Trilogy (1993-1994), directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski

 

[raybia]

I don't think WB is really buying the whole "trilogy" thing. They'll milk this franchise for all it's got, but it's likely we'll lose Nolan fter 3. Which really isn't all bad unless the entire cast quits and/or we get a sh1tty replacement directors.

WB continuing to make Batfilms after Nolan's trilogy would not cease it from being a trilogy.

Lucas overall Star Wars saga is also consider to be two seperate trilogies.

 

[Ronny Shade]

so basically you´re saying: because the realism aspect in BB and the concentration on the Bruce Wayne character worked so well, we should put Batman in a spacesuit and let him fight a couple of interstellar amazons in TDK...

Yes.

That's what I want to happen with the 4th film, not TDK.

And not interstellar amazons, but Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, Bane, Hatter, Man Bat, Etrigan...

 

[raybia]

so basically you´re saying: because the realism aspect in BB and the concentration on the Bruce Wayne character worked so well, we should put Batman in a spacesuit and let him fight a couple of interstellar amazons in TDK...

Sounds funky! t:

 

[raybia]

IF a PROVEN fact that the 4th movie of any franchises (except James Bond movies his 4th being 'ThunderBall') will be the one that is Loathe and Hated by the fans becasue it doesn't live up to the preceding 3.

Some Examples:

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home

Therefore, it's safer to stop a series at 3.t:

Please tell me you're kidding. This was rated one of the best of the Star Trek films and one of the highest in terms of box office.

 

[Two-Face]

First of all, I don't mind WB making more than 3 but usually third sequel are good but when the 4th movie comes out it becomes **** or people aren't interested in the movie anymore. If Nolan said, "I want make 3 films that's all" I respect him for his decision, which I think after using Joker and Two-Face in third movie he will leave.

 

[Darknightnomis]

Please tell me you're kidding. This was rated one of the best of the Star Trek films and one of the highest in terms of box office.

The truth of the matter is I was really thinking about 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but that was the 5th in the series and wouldn't work with my '4th sequel is a stinker' theory!

So I was stretching the truth a little by adding 'the voyage home' with the other sequel, I actually think it's one of the BEST in all the series , but I had to have a Star Trek movie in the list somewhere.

 

[Ronny Shade]

First of all, I don't mind WB making more than 3 but usually third sequel are good but when the 4th movie cames out it becomes **** or people aren't interested in the movie anymore. if Nolan said "I want make 3 films that's all" I respect him for his decission which I think after using Joker and Two-Face in third movie he will leave.

and then they should give it to JJ Abrams or Ridley Scott or David Fincher.

 

[raybia]

The truth of the matter is I was really thinking about 'Star Trek V: The Final Frontier' but that was the 5th in the series and wouldn't work with my '4th sequel is a stinker' theory!

So I was stretching the truth a little by adding 'the voyage home' with the other sequel, I actually think it's one of the BEST in all the series , but I had to have a Star Trek movie in the list somewhere.

Off topic. Ok I agree with you on Star Trek V, but do you know that the movie is not fully Shatner's vision and a number of things were cut out that would have made it a better movie including good FX due to budget constraints. There has been talk about Paramount fixing the movie's special effects. All in all though, if you watch the original series, it is classic Trek. It would have been a great two parter.

Ok, back on topic.

 

[raybia]

First of all, I don't mind WB making more than 3 but usually third sequel are good but when the 4th movie comes out it becomes **** or people aren't interested in the movie anymore. If Nolan said, "I want make 3 films that's all" I respect him for his decision, which I think after using Joker and Two-Face in third movie he will leave.

I just don't buy the argument that only 3 good movies can be made in any film series and thats it.

I have seen films series where even the first or 2nd movie sucked.

If they do faulter, its not because the public has lost interest, but its usually the studio to blame.

If the studio makes a committment to make and retain a strong film series then I believe it can continue to crank out solid movies in terms of quality and box office for years.

A perfect example is the Harry Potter series.

Certainly a 68 year old comic book character that continues to be as popular as Batman with countless classic stories from comics, graphic novels, and actual novels, can have much more than 3 great movies made if the studio stays as committed to it as it during BB.

Of course, that is the key isn't it?

 

[Ronny Shade]

yep

Usually it gets to the point where it's more cost-effective to just shove out another film and not care about the quality of it :cough X3:

 

[Darknightnomis]

Off topic. Ok I agree with you on Star Trek V, but do you know that the movie is not fully Shatner's vision and a number of things were cut out that would have made it a better movie including good FX due to budget constraints. There has been talk about Paramount fixing the movie's special effects. All in all though, if you watch the original series, it is classic Trek. It would have been a great two parter.

Ok, back on topic.

An off topic to your off topic.

I didn't know that. I always heard that it was ALL Shatner's vision (the directing, plot, etc. ), or at least that's how it was marketed when it first came out. I remember how some critics said this would be the one that they will always compare Shatner's directing with Nemoys and who was the better.

But I always thought the premise of the movie was a great idea. the search for God by a renagade Vulcan that happen to be Spock's brother. The potienal there was ripe and it was moreso in the veign of the 60s TV series.

I think what turn a lot of people off was that it seems like the antics of kirk (climbing mountains, beating the mind controls, Questioning "god") in the movie was feeding off Shatner's huge ego.


Okay back to the topic at hand.....