Why Bale and Routh arent part of the Justice League

[Crook]

I'm glad Christian Bale isn't in this. I enjoyed his version of Batman but don't want it mixed with JLA, something that will take on a completely different tone with a different director. I'm not one of the "Bale is the holy grail" guys so I'm certainly open to other people's visions of Batman as well.

I hope this movie goes well and it's Batman could put up a little friendly bat-competition with Chris Bale, hehe.

Thing is, recently Bale has really established himself in the Hollywood circles. Had his name been attached to this project, I guarantee that would've piqued actors' interest in the movie. By now, we'd probably hear a lot better rumors in the casting department, rather than the teeny boppers we're stuck with.

As of now, there's no cast, and that probably means no one is willing to step up to the plate and take a huge leap of faith with an unproven franchise. That could lead to trouble.

 

[MechaOrga]

I actually want Keaton to be in this film to continue and complete his BAT Trilogy!!

An older wiser Batman to counteract Bale's young year 1/2 Batsy.

 

[MechaOrga]

Thing is, recently Bale has really established himself in the Hollywood circles. Had his name been attached to this project, I guarantee that would've piqued actors' interest in the movie.

As of now, there's no cast, and that probably means no one is willing to step up to the plate and take a huge leap of faith with an unproven franchise. That could lead to trouble.

Absolutely on the money!

If you have Jessica Biel passing, your movie is in trouble

And my thinking is Routh is a lockout mainly for WB's hating on all things Superman Returns now.

If they have a good new Supes in JL, they can spin him off into another, yet this time, Donner-less film.

 

[I Am The Knight]

We've only had Biel and Columbus Short officially passing on roles. That's 2. Two actors. We don't know why they passed on the roles, it could have been due to contractual issues for Biel, or something else. Short said the script was "too much popcorn" for his taste but how the hell did he get to read the script? Methinks he is an attention ****e. t: And well, I'm sure you people realize it's hard to cast the friggin' JUSTICE LEAGUE.....We are talking Iconic here. So maybe they are just taking their time getting it right. Key words are: We don't know that much yet, apart from wack CD girls' rumors, so patience is a virtue!!

 

[Nokio]

i agree with most of what u said (even though i still enjoyed the movie), but you seriously thought F4RSS was a better movie? it was corny, not well executed, the acting was horrible, and the plot was extremely cliche. and i like Batman Returns better than 89

Well now the terms or context you say that isn't what i meant. Perhaps saying it was a better film would lead you to take it that way. I'll say that i enjoyed FF2 more then BB and both has their flaws. When you go into quality, which i'm sure you mean i'll give BB that in terms of better acting, character interaction and development, and directing, but FF2 was just more enjoyable to me. Just like Transformers was awesome and crushed both F4 and BB. I really enjoyed that film, but is TF a better film then BB in terms of quality, i say no. I guess i'm trying to say the technical aspect is BB is better. I hope you get what i'm saying and not coming across as making no sense. It's like comparing a Dodge Magnum(with the hemi) to a Toyota camry. The Magnum is more fun and enjoyable, but the Camry is better in terms of quality.

 

[Nokio]

Absolutely on the money!

If you have Jessica Biel passing, your movie is in trouble

And my thinking is Routh is a lockout mainly for WB's hating on all things Superman Returns now.

If they have a good new Supes in JL, they can spin him off into another, yet this time, Donner-less film.

Yeah i agree with you on routh. i really think he should be allowed to be Supes. Biel passing doesn't say the film is in trouble when you have a guy like Miller and some of the other crew that we've heard on board.

 

[Steelsheen]

you guys have no idea how relieved i am that Biel passed on this. i mean come on guys, she has a great bod but has a face of a horse, how can that be WW?

 

[dnno1]

Blasphemy!! t: What scenes are you talking about? I watched the film many times, and never did I see or hear anyone complaining about how their kids were scared, at all. No crying, nothing, ever. Besides, We've had live action Batman for kids....It was called....Wait! don't make me say it...!

[YT]4HWIhZQRJmo[/YT]
Watch it again. All of the scenes where the scarecrow used his fear gas and then placed on his mask could be considered disturbing for a child under the age of 10. In addition, Yahoo Movie Mom's Reviews warns parents that the movie "has a dark and disturbing tone and a lot of peril and violence, including a child who sees his parents shot to death and is haunted by it. There is brief strong language. Characters drink and one appears tipsy." I think that these kinds of things discouraged a number of families from going to see this move and hurt its box office potential.[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

Batman and The Fantastic Four should probably target different demographics. FF is light hearted stuff, Batman should be the opposite. Batman movies should always be some of the most ''serious'' comic book films, while still entertaining, wich BB was. So, please don't say things like ''FF ROTSS was beter in that sense'' because the 2 films are not competing. They are completely different in tone.

Batman should be just as big a draw (or even bigger) than Spider-Man. At least that is what you would think based on his reception in other media. By making him darker than he was during the Tim Burton era you are only alienating him away from his bread and butter demographic (younger kids). I think there is a happy medium somewhere where a Batman film could be made that would be very successful and that everyone can enjoy. I say that because it has happened before (in 1989).

And just because Batman did better than Batman Begins it doesn't means it was better. Do you think The Phantom Menace is a great film?

[YT]rlURzhz7X6c[/YT]

Yes, it was better quality (cinematography wise) than any of the previous films (but not necessarily better over all), and it's sad that Darth Maul died in that film. I think a lot of people thought he was a cool villain.

 

[Jake Cassidy]

I'm gonna say this again. Batman is NOT and should NEVER be for kids.

 

[dnno1]

I'm gonna say this again. Batman is NOT and should NEVER be for kids.

Yet DC and the WB still target them. I think you are making a mistake by saying that. These kids are the ones that will be enjoying these films in their adult years and will be wanting to get their kids to know him as well. By making Batman solely for adults you eliminate at least a third of your market share and become marginal as a tentpole film, and you will make it harder for those kids to accept him when they get older.

 

[dnno1]

you guys have no idea how relieved i am that Biel passed on this. i mean come on guys, she has a great bod but has a face of a horse, how can that be WW?

If I ever see her I will tell her to go over your house so that you can tell that to her face.

 

[Steelsheen]

If I ever see her I will tell her to go over your house so that you can tell that to her face.

i think she's aware of that. why do you think is she trying so hard to be a good actress? she knows she cant compete with Jessica Simpson.

 

[I Am The Knight]

Watch it again. All of the scenes where the scarecrow used his fear gas and then placed on his mask could be considered disturbing for a child under the age of 10. In addition, Yahoo Movie Mom's Reviews warns parents that the movie "has a dark and disturbing tone and a lot of peril and violence, including a child who sees his parents shot to death and is haunted by it. There is brief strong language. Characters drink and one appears tipsy." I think that these kinds of things discouraged a number of families from going to see this move and hurt its box office potential.

Yes. But like I said in my previous post, I saw the movie with kids. Multiple times. No crying kids or anything like that. I took my nephew (7 at the time) to watch it and he was fine. He loved it. And the other kids on the theater were fine, too. I saw the movie 7 times in the theater. If the movie is too much for "Yahoo Moms" then that is really too bad Plus, people really need to get this through their thick head: Movie theaters are not for lazy parents to keep their little brats entertained for 2 hours. I could see a very young kid being afraid of some stuff in the movie, or bored, but I guess the people I saw it with had the common sense to not take their babies to a Batman movie that looked too "serious" and dark **** And, come on, Batman in 1989 had a lot of violence and disturbing imagery, too. I actually thought the fear gas scenes in BB were kinda tame in comparison to what they should be, but that's just me. I saw one dude go "Whoa" at the Bat Demon sequence with Crane, but that was it.

Batman should be just as big a draw (or even bigger) than Spider-Man. At least that is what you would think based on his reception in other media. By making him darker than he was during the Tim Burton era you are only alienating him away from his bread and butter demographic (younger kids). I think there is a happy medium somewhere where a Batman film could be made that would be very successful and that everyone can enjoy. I say that because it has happened before (in 1989).

I think there is a difference. Batman was huge in 1989 but things are different now. Kids need flashier things to be "wowed" this days....Things like Spider-Man, perhaps. I don't think Batman can reach those Spider-Man numbers. Back in the day he was seen as special by little kids, but nowadays I don't see it happening. He never had had a big movie before 1989. Much like Spider-Man in 2002. By the time we get to Batman Begins, people were "Oh look, another Batman movie..." And, honestly, Batman should not be for little kids. Movie-wise, it never really was, at least not with Burton. But that's another discussion.

Batman in BB was not darker. Do you really not see all the dark stuff in that movie? Psycho Batman terrorizing thugs, Joker scene where he breaks the mirror and laughs horribly as he climbs the stairs, Joker talking in the dark to his boss before killing him, shooting like a manic with that perverse smile of his....Hell, Jack Nicholson could be hella scary for kids, most of his scenes were kinda freaky if you think about it. Sure, he also provided the most fun in the movie, but overall, the tone and feel was not "happy"

Yes, it was better quality (cinematography wise) than any of the previous films (but not necessarily better over all), and it's sad that Darth Maul died in that film. I think a lot of people thought he was a cool villain.

But that was not the point. I was talking about the quality of a film versus it's popularity.

i think she's aware of that. why do you think is she trying so hard to be a good actress? she knows she cant compete with Jessica Simpson.

 

[DieSmiling]

I'm gonna say this again. Batman is NOT and should NEVER be for kids.

Kids have to be able to see it, man. When did you become a Batman fan? I became one when I was five years old...

 

[jmc]

If the kids want Batman, there's a few cartoon they can choose, the Nolan series is not targeted to them and I for one am thankful.

 

[az824]

Well now the terms or context you say that isn't what i meant. Perhaps saying it was a better film would lead you to take it that way. I'll say that i enjoyed FF2 more then BB and both has their flaws. When you go into quality, which i'm sure you mean i'll give BB that in terms of better acting, character interaction and development, and directing, but FF2 was just more enjoyable to me. Just like Transformers was awesome and crushed both F4 and BB. I really enjoyed that film, but is TF a better film then BB in terms of quality, i say no. I guess i'm trying to say the technical aspect is BB is better. I hope you get what i'm saying and not coming across as making no sense. It's like comparing a Dodge Magnum(with the hemi) to a Toyota camry. The Magnum is more fun and enjoyable, but the Camry is better in terms of quality.

well, ok that makes sense.

 

[Nokio]

i think she's aware of that. why do you think is she trying so hard to be a good actress? she knows she cant compete with Jessica Simpson.

Well I wouldn't use Jessica Simpson as an example. Simpson is not attractive to me. i guess if I could see the real her not the Hollywood version of her i could make a judgement. To many of the young women in Hollywood now are already plasticking themselves out before they even reach freaking 30(still to young to have work done in my opinion). The cosmetic work, the dye jobs, lip injections, and constantly dieting is all to much for me. I'd take biel over Simpson any day. Not sure if Biel has had anywork done, but she certainly looks more natural to me then Simpson.

 

[Showtime]

When? Tomorrow
Where? Hype Community

Cast your vote.

 

[Steelsheen]

Well I wouldn't use Jessica Simpson as an example. Simpson is not attractive to me. i guess if I could see the real her not the Hollywood version of her i could make a judgement. To many of the young women in Hollywood now are already plasticking themselves out before they even reach freaking 30(still to young to have work done in my opinion). The cosmetic work, the dye jobs, lip injections, and constantly dieting is all to much for me. I'd take biel over Simpson any day. Not sure if Biel has had anywork done, but she certainly looks more natural to me then Simpson.

i just named Simpson off the top of my head as an example of actresses who land roles based solely on how good their bods look. Biel can compete with Simpson in that regard, however if you take just facial beauty Simpson will edge her out. but then again if Biel actually has talent why debase herself to that level? see what i mean?

 

[dnno1]

Yes. But like I said in my previous post, I saw the movie with kids. Multiple times. No crying kids or anything like that. I took my nephew (7 at the time) to watch it and he was fine. He loved it. And the other kids on the theater were fine, too. I saw the movie 7 times in the theater. If the movie is too much for "Yahoo Moms" then that is really too bad Plus, people really need to get this through their thick head: Movie theaters are not for lazy parents to keep their little brats entertained for 2 hours. I could see a very young kid being afraid of some stuff in the movie, or bored, but I guess the people I saw it with had the common sense to not take their babies to a Batman movie that looked too "serious" and dark **** And, come on, Batman in 1989 had a lot of violence and disturbing imagery, too. I actually thought the fear gas scenes in BB were kinda tame in comparison to what they should be, but that's just me. I saw one dude go "Whoa" at the Bat Demon sequence with Crane, but that was it.

You know, I can't stop you from doing what you do, but may people of authority know and it is generally agreed that disturbing films can influence young children in a negative light. There are many studies that show that many children are harmed by premature exposure to stuff like that and can get a distorted view of life when the grow up. You might have thought that the children you saw at that film were ok just on a cursory observation of them at the theater, but I doubt you know what their reaction was when they got home that knight, How many of them couldn't sleep or how many of them actually closed their eyes when those scenes occurred during the film. There are even some of your friends here who are saying that "Batman Begins" (and Batman in general) is not for kids, so there is very little credence to what you are saying here.

I think there is a difference. Batman was huge in 1989 but things are different now. Kids need flashier things to be "wowed" this days....Things like Spider-Man, perhaps. I don't think Batman can reach those Spider-Man numbers. Back in the day he was seen as special by little kids, but nowadays I don't see it happening. He never had had a big movie before 1989. Much like Spider-Man in 2002. By the time we get to Batman Begins, people were "Oh look, another Batman movie..." And, honestly, Batman should not be for little kids. Movie-wise, it never really was, at least not with Burton. But that's another discussion.

Yes things are different now but there is no excuse for Batman not being a hit to day, because he sill is in other media. Batman can reach Spider-Man numbers, but his films have to include a larger audience. I can see that happening if there is someone with that vision directing the film.

Batman in BB was not darker. Do you really not see all the dark stuff in that movie? Psycho Batman terrorizing thugs, Joker scene where he breaks the mirror and laughs horribly as he climbs the stairs, Joker talking in the dark to his boss before killing him, shooting like a manic with that perverse smile of his....Hell, Jack Nicholson could be hella scary for kids, most of his scenes were kinda freaky if you think about it. Sure, he also provided the most fun in the movie, but overall, the tone and feel was not "happy"

"Batman" (1989) was dark, but it was not as disturbing as "Batman Begins". Plain and simple.

But that was not the point. I was talking about the quality of a film versus it's popularity

And that was what I commented on. "The Phantom Menace" was a good quality film (cinematography wise), but unfortunately some of the scenes were a rehash of "A New Hope" and "The Empire Strikes Back" which the older audience already knew about and may have disappointed them slightly. I can not say the same for the younger generation though. Also piracy might have affected the reception the film had. The studio was very disappointed with the results of the Asian box office and attributed that to piracy and who knows how many viewers the Star Wars franchise lost to illegal Internet downloads of the films. Another factor to its demise is that multiple viewings of Star Wars films in ridiculous number by fans was trendy some 30 years ago or so, but it is not the case now.

 

[The Guard]

"Batman" (1989) was dark, but it was not as disturbing as "Batman Begins". Plain and simple.

I don't know...

A family is attacked. The Waynes death is portrayed fairly graphically. The Joker fries a man with a joybuzzer, turning him into a blackened skeleton. Murders a man with a quill pen. Scars his girlfriend. Murders people on television. Gases half of Gotham City. Shoots his own man. It contains far more disturbing events than what happens in BATMAN BEGINS.

 

[dnno1]

I don't know...

A family is attacked. The Waynes death is portrayed fairly graphically. The Joker fries a man with a joybuzzer, turning him into a blackened skeleton. Murders a man with a quill pen. Scars his girlfriend. Murders people on television. Gases half of Gotham City. Shoots his own man. It contains far more disturbing events than what happens in BATMAN BEGINS.

Then are you trying to say that "Batman Begins" wasn't dark enough?

 

[The Guard]

Not at all. I'm just saying BATMAN was more "disturbing" overall. So was BATMAN RETURNS, come to think of it.

BATMAN BEGINS was more in the vein of your typical action movie (stuff exploding, villains plunging to their deaths, people being shot in the back), except with Batman in it. BATMAN took things to a whole different level. I mean, The Joker FRIED a man with a joybuzzer, turning him into a blackened skeleton. The closest thing BEGINS has to a moment like this is when The Scarecrow sees Batman as a demon. But that's not nearly as disturbing.

 

[az824]

i didnt think begins was nearly dark enough, i though it felt more desperate than dark. burton's batman movies were dark, the way batman is in the comics

 

[I Am The Knight]

You know, I can't stop you from doing what you do, but may people of authority know and it is generally agreed that disturbing films can influence young children in a negative light. There are many studies that show that many children are harmed by premature exposure to stuff like that and can get a distorted view of life when the grow up. You might have thought that the children you saw at that film were ok just on a cursory observation of them at the theater, but I doubt you know what their reaction was when they got home that knight, How many of them couldn't sleep or how many of them actually closed their eyes when those scenes occurred during the film. There are even some of your friends here who are saying that "Batman Begins" (and Batman in general) is not for kids, so there is very little credence to what you are saying here.

Sure, I can't really know if the other kids had nightmares when they got home, but I'm inclined to think that most didn't. I can only "really" point to my nephews' experience with the film. He wasn't scared that night, or had any nightmares because to it. I guess ultimately it has more to do with each kids' mind and how they might react to the stuff they saw in BB. As it is, I don't see a film that would terrify a kid the way something like...Oh I don't know....A couple of scenes in Batman 89.

Yes things are different now but there is no excuse for Batman not being a hit to day, because he sill is in other media. Batman can reach Spider-Man numbers, but his films have to include a larger audience. I can see that happening if there is someone with that vision directing the film.

Batman is a hit. Batman Begins made over $200 million in the U.S. alone, and close to $400 million worldwide. It was also a very well reviewed film back in 2005, and actually managed to please the GA, and the fans. I don't know about you, but that seems succesful to me. How many movies do you see making Spider-Man-like numbers, anyway? Mostly more family oriented movies. The Batman movies were some of the most succesful during the 90's. Batman Begins not making as much as Spider-Man can be because of many things. Over Exposure of the character, maybe. But mostly it was the nature of the movie, as I see it. It was not really a kids movie. Not because it was "dark" ... But rather because it was more serious in tone than most comic book films.

"Batman" (1989) was dark, but it was not as disturbing as "Batman Begins". Plain and simple.

I disagree. Batman 89 had some gruesome imagery, and the whole look of the film can be very nightmarish. Batman Returns is the best example of that though. *** Batman Begins looks clean...Sober....Probably even "Boring" to a kid. Not scary, or disturbing. It feels more like a Hero film than any of Burton's Bat films. Nolan was trying to give the film a **hyper reality** look, verus the ghoulish look Burton gave his films. And the Batman in BB does not give you a psycho vibe.

BATMAN BEGINS was more in the vein of your typical action movie (stuff exploding, villains plunging to their deaths, people being shot in the back), except with Batman in it. BATMAN took things to a whole different level. I mean, The Joker FRIED a man with a joybuzzer, turning him into a blackened skeleton. The closest thing BEGINS has to a moment like this is when The Scarecrow sees Batman as a demon. But that's not nearly as disturbing.

Yes, this is what I mean, exactly.