The Dark Knight Why aren't they...

[FaT_tONle]

filming these back to back... plz tell me we don't have to wait till 2011 since this movie probably ends on a hanger... Bale is already in his early thirties... WB should know these movies are slam dunks despite what they did with SR... I just want them to finish this trilogy quickly and if successful... the actors can come back for a fourth while they are still young... 2011 is an enternity... I know it will probably be better with the three year gap rather than rushing it but doesn't it make sense... ala Matrix and POTC? Just a thought...

 

[Agentsands77]

I don't think THE DARK KNIGHT will end on a cliffhanger, so I wouldn't worry about that.

Otherwise, we're going to have to wait 'till 2010-2011 for sure. Mainly because the cast and crew of these films want freedom to do many other things. And I'm all for that.

 

[raybia]

I think I would rather have the Nolan brothers work exclusively on TDK rather than on two movies at the same time. That is really a daulting process even for an director who is experienced at make big budget blockbuster type movies.

It worked on LOTR but it doesn't always product consistent results.

Instead of two possible quality movies by shooting one at a time, you might have two average ones (Matrix), or one avg. and one above avg. (Back to the Future II & III)

 

[grimlock]

I thought it was back to back too because LOTR,Matrix which were Warner franchises made that happen. Disney's Pirates are back to back as well. I wanted it back to back but nothing I can do about it now.

 

[darknight7]

I have a feeling that TDK will end on a cliffhanger.

How can it not? There is no way they will be able to sum everything up in TDK alone...especially with introducing Dent.

I'm sure they have something up their sleeve, those tricky Nolans.

--dk7

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I dunno if TDK is remotley successful, and critically acclaimed, or if not acclaimed, monsterously successful, I think they will go right a head with 3, and we will get it by 2010

I am also under the assumption that they won't have to cast anyone, and the treatment written, with possibley a script too

 

[Rynan]

They aren't filming back to back because they secretly dislike you. Yes, YOU. Nolan has constructed a giant conspiracy against you and there's nothing you can do about it.

Cus Nolan's the ****ing man.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

They aren't filming back to back because they secretly dislike you. Yes, YOU. Nolan has constructed a giant conspiracy against you and there's nothing you can do about it.

Cus Nolan's the ****ing man.

LOL!!!

 

[GEDRedemption]

There was no second unit director on Begins and it took a lot out of Nolan. I'm sure that Nolan has decided once again, very wisely I'll add, to just do it his self and make a great movie that is completely his vision with a great feel all the way through.

I think that Nolan will want to do the third one all his self as well. Now doing two huge movies like The Dark Knight and its sequel would be far too much for any one man.

I'm very glad Nolan is putting so much effort into making The Dark Knight so awesome.

 

[The Shape]

I'd rather them NOT film these two sequels back to back.

Because I hate the way the system works. You make a successful first movie in a series. Then some idiot decides to film the next 2 sequels back to back. So they do. The second film is released. It's basically garbage and has some stupid cliffhanger until the third is released the next year. And the third winds up being crap, too.

This is what happened with the Matrix series, and so far, POTC, since POTC2 was garbage and had a stupid cliffhanger. I'd rather Nolan and Co. take their time and give us some quality films, each with their own complete stories that can be stand alone films, but can also come together and form a series. I don't care if we have to wait, since good things come to those who wait.

I waited years for a good Batman film to come around and we got Begins, which I was very happy with. So I'm willing to wait some more.

 

[Katsuro]

^Agreed. I'd like all three movies to stand alone, yet also come together as a trilogy. Cliffhangers just screw people out of their money. You pay for a movie, and get half of one, and it's bull****. I want a beginning, a middle, and an end.

Of course, I wouldn't mind if they do put Harvey's scarring in the end of the second, but not as the final scene in typical "dum dum DUM!!!" cliffhanger fashion. Have the movie end with Harvey in the hospital, Joker going to Arkham, and Batman and Gordon perhaps talking atop the police station again. Wind the movie down, but give strong indication as to what's happeneing next time. Tie up all the major plot lines from the second movie, but open up one new one to be explored in the third.

 

[WompuM]

I dunno. I think every person who saw matrix revolutions, dead mans chest, or bttf pt II came out of the theater pissed off. IMO

 

[L0ngsh0t]

I dunno. I think every person who saw matrix revolutions, dead mans chest, or bttf pt II came out of the theater pissed off. IMO

yeah thats wrong, I liked DMC, BTTF2, and Reloded, I hated Revolutions though

what kind of an opinion is that anyways?

In my opinion everyone came out of a theater pissed off? lets be real, that isn't much of an opinion, and the little it is, is very narrow-minded, and result-specific

it would be like me saying because I like the movie Club Dread "Hey everyone who saw club dread loved it" when that is so not true, most of the time I find that more people don't like Club Dread than do

I would bet you 5 bucks, if we asked everyone who saw DMC that more people like that movie than don't

 

[Agentsands77]

I have a feeling that TDK will end on a cliffhanger.

How can it not? There is no way they will be able to sum everything up in TDK alone...especially with introducing Dent.

There's a difference between a cliffhanger and leaving things unresolved. BATMAN BEGINS left things unresolved, didn't have a cliffhanger. SPIDER-MAN 2 left things unresolved, but didn't have a cliffhanger. THE DARK KNIGHT will have loose ends at the end, but I doubt it'll be a cliffhanger ending.

 

[darknight7]

What exactly IS a cliffhanger ending?

When Batman is falling off a building without a cape or grappling gun, and than the credits roll?

Not being a smartass, I am just curious.

--dk7

 

[thedarks0ldier]

Begins had a cliffhanger ending, and so did Spider-Man 2. A cliff hanger ending too me means that the movie has too many loose ends and leaves you with unresolved issue(s) (blantently at times) that pretty much demands for sequal. Geek movies that don't have cliffhanger endings are movies like Spider-Man I, Matrix I, Star Wars - A New Hope, Dare Devil, X-Men I, Superman I. Granted they do have unresolved issues, but they also give no promise nor dire need for a sequal, and work as stand alone films that don't require a sequal to feel a sense of closure.

 

[Agentsands77]

What exactly IS a cliffhanger ending?

When the story isn't resolved at all and there is practically no conclusion. BATMAN BEGINS concluded, and you felt like that chapter had been closed, which is why it wasn't a cliffhanger. BEGINS, though it hinted at a sequel at the end, didn't really need a sequel to conclude it. It was its own story and proudly stands alone.

Or, for another example, CASINO ROYALE. There are some loose threads left at the end, but mostly it really doesn't need a sequel to follow it up for the film to make sense. It makes sense on its own. It has concluded, Bond has arrived, and that's that. The central story has reached a resolution, and at the end of the film, you feel like you've concluded a journey, rather than feeling like you're still in the middle of one.

When you feel like everything's still up in the air, that's when it's a cliffhanger. For example, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK or DEAD MAN'S CHEST or THE MATRIX RELOADED. Those are cliffhangers, because they really are just halves of a story without a resolution when you've reached the end.

 

[D4rkseid]

Begins had a cliffhanger ending, and so did Spider-Man 2. A cliff hanger ending too me means that the movie has too many loose ends and leaves you with unresolved issue(s) (blantently at times) that pretty much demands for sequal. Geek movies that don't have cliffhanger endings are movies like Spider-Man I, Matrix I, Star Wars - A New Hope, Dare Devil, X-Men I, Superman I. Granted they do have unresolved issues, but they also give no promise nor dire need for a sequal, and work as stand alone films that don't require a sequal to feel a sense of closure.

Uh, how is at the very end of the credits for Superman -- "Next Year: Superman II" not a promise for a sequel???

t:

 

[Nepenthes]

Loose ends do not equal a cliff hanger

 

[Katsuro]

yeah thats wrong, I liked DMC, BTTF2, and Reloded, I hated Revolutions though

what kind of an opinion is that anyways?

In my opinion everyone came out of a theater pissed off? lets be real, that isn't much of an opinion, and the little it is, is very narrow-minded, and result-specific

it would be like me saying because I like the movie Club Dread "Hey everyone who saw club dread loved it" when that is so not true, most of the time I find that more people don't like Club Dread than do

I would bet you 5 bucks, if we asked everyone who saw DMC that more people like that movie than don't

You can be pissed off walking out of a theater and still have enjoyed the movie. For example, I love the show 24, but every Monday night at 9:59 i'm extremely pissed off. I enjoyed the show, but I hate the idea of waiting another week to continue it. For a movie like Pirates 2, you could have loved the movie, but still hate the fact that it'll be a whole year until you can watch the rest of it.

And he wasn't stating an opinion, he was making a prediction of a fact. He was guessing, based on what he saw, that most other people would probably be just as pissed off as he was. And he was probably right, I know I felt that way.

 

[El Payaso]

What exactly IS a cliffhanger ending?

When Batman is falling off a building without a cape or grappling gun, and than the credits roll?

Not being a smartass, I am just curious.

--dk7

It's when Batman ends up hanging from a cliff, silly.

 

[darknight7]

Begins had a cliffhanger ending, and so did Spider-Man 2. A cliff hanger ending too me means that the movie has too many loose ends and leaves you with unresolved issue(s) (blantently at times) that pretty much demands for sequal. Geek movies that don't have cliffhanger endings are movies like Spider-Man I, Matrix I, Star Wars - A New Hope, Dare Devil, X-Men I, Superman I. Granted they do have unresolved issues, but they also give no promise nor dire need for a sequal, and work as stand alone films that don't require a sequal to feel a sense of closure.

See, that is what I thought was a cliffhanger ending as well. Something that leaves you wanting more, something that leaves you KNOWING there is more...

Such as what BB did for me...

But now that everyone has explained their point of view...I understand...

*breaks out into song*

"I CAN SEE CLEARLY NOW, THE RAIN IS GONE!!"

--dk7

 

[darknight7]

It's when Batman ends up hanging from a cliff, silly.

oh you, you're such a Joker...



--dk7

 

[Crooklyn]

Yes, it left us wanting more...but there was still closure in the film. That is why it isn't a cliffhanger. Matrix Reloaded is the best example, with the film ending right in the middle of a big scene.

 

[WompuM]

yeah, DMC and bttf2 are clifhangers.
like the priates are going to save jack, or marty is stuck in 1955.
BB is not a cliffhanger. it can stand alone as a film without watching DK (as far as we know).