The Dark Knight Rises Zack Snyder wants to make a "The Dark Knight Returns" Movie!

[I Am The Knight]

That's what she said.

 

[Nightwatcher11]

look at the amount of films Synder is supposedly signed on for... we wouldn't be able to catch a glimpse of this at LEAST until 2012. And that's if WB even allows a green light for him after B3, and he drops all other projects and goes straight for this... I'm all down for this, I think he could pull off the stylistic part of TDKR but... Watchmen will prove if he has the talent to bring the drama aspects to film as the style and action already look fantastic IMO.

I actually would NOT like to see Christian Bale reprise the role... it would confuse the hell out of people and i believe there are tons of great actors to be the "old bat" we love from the comic but the problem is finding the right one...

 

[DSET]

Why? The two have nothing to do with each other. If anything, it simply means said director does not deserve credit for being a good writer. Directing is a whole different ball-game and often takes more responsibility especially when it comes to film.


That's what everyone has been saying about Watchmen for 20 years. It's the un-filmable graphic novel.

I know that

But regardless its the directors project what he says goes, unless hes a puppet and has no say in his project.

If you notice the pattern both of his films look to be line for line,
its obvious that he thinks this method works and is suitable for his films, and films in general. If he does TDKR im sure it wont be an exception.

Its a personal thing I don't much like the way 300 translated to screenplay, because it wasn't translated it was just read out of the book.

As for watchmen being an un-filmable comic, we have not yet seen it trailers look good lets see the movie before we deem it a success.
I think returns wont work simply because of the style of the story to me it just wouldnt work the way it stands, thats why i hope its changed to suit the big screen.

 

[StorminNorman]

300 and Watchmen have very little in common stylistically.

 

[DSET]

i never said it did

im just saying
you can see that synder doesnt like to tailor (re-write) his comic-film adaptations, they are just read out of the book.

Watchmen is a comic of all comics so hopefully the source material holds its own

But TDKR straight to film im fairly certain wont

 

[Crook]

Of course he's gonna stick close to the source. The adaptations he is making are from the story itself. It is not a reinvention of a character or world. It IS the story.

It is no different when Hollywood adapts books or short stories into film. For Snyder, the source is worthy of being made into a film with little to no alterations to the story. And that is fine.

Jumping mediums from literature to cinema is a pretty big move in and of itself. Even with minor changes, the director has a very heavy plate on his hands in simply bringing the narrative and visuals to life in a coherent and engrossing manner. It is not a layman process, or a simple copy & paste job. Far from it.

 

[Doc Samson]

But Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were in continuity with Batman and Batman Returns. Batman is always going to be a movie FRANCHISE, not a movie character. You simply don't make a single Batman movie with no thoughts on how to continue. If its not in continuity with Nolan's Bat Franchise, or with any other Bat Franchise, it won't be made. Its a waste of the character's potential from a Film Producer's point of view. Now we can talk about dream scenarios and what should happen in a perfect world - but thats all it would be, a dream.

Sadly, I think your right. The greed of big studio would certainly make them think twice of just doing a one-off movie about Batman, but after Nolan wraps a third film, I don't understand why they can't just make it some years down the road. Far more than anything else, I don't want another Nolan film without Nolan doing it, it would be something else entirely.

 

[NinjaTurtleFan]

More Casting:

Ronald Reagan- Rich Little (comedian/impressionist)

Mutant Leader- Michael Clark Duncan or Randy Courture

Two-Face- Ed Harris or Viggo Mortesen

 

[DSET]

Of course he's gonna stick close to the source. The adaptations he is making are from the story itself. It is not a reinvention of a character or world. It IS the story.

i understand that all i was saying is that dialogue\screenplay wise reading straight out of a comic doesnt work IMO

It is no different when Hollywood adapts books or short stories into film. For Snyder, the source is worthy of being made into a film with little to no alterations to the story. And that is fine.

you think its fine my opinion is that it isnt, it feels unnatural to me even when i saw Henry V for example, when they read the play aloud it doesnt feel like a movie it feels like a play. Thats how i felt about 300, again watchmen might work but i strongly believe TDKR wont work in this manner just my opinion. TDKR not only dialogue wise needs to be changed but i also feel some story alterations are neccesairy but thats a different story.

99.999% of the book to film adaptations are trimmed and or rewritten to produce a film, only Shakespeare (plays) and 300 now watchemen are read directly if that.

Jumping mediums from literature to cinema is a pretty big move in and of itself. Even with minor changes, the director has a very heavy plate on his hands in simply bringing the narrative and visuals to life in a coherent and engrossing manner. It is not a layman process, or a simple copy & paste job. Far from it.

im not saying its easy, but i just dont think it will work for TDKR, it may for watchmen (strong source dialogue wise), and did not for 300 IMO that is.

question
what is that in your avvy?

again
all I'm not talking about changing the story and or cutting things out
although id prefer if the story was changed a bit for the film, thats not my main gripe.
Im talking about re-writing a the comic dialogue to produce a screenplay, as opposed to taking the dialogue from the comic, that is what i am mainly against here.

 

[margon]

Snyder can still use the cold war aspect. Why can't he? No one is complaining that Watchmen is in the 80's with Nixon in his 5th term. It doesn't have to be modernized version.

O rly? Ok try and keep track of this in your head...

1. The Cold War must occur in the 1980's. That cannot be messed with
2. Public audiences are accustomed to the fact that Batman, as seen in films, is set in the present day, and is roughly about 30-35 years old.
3. Now what happens when you age batman by 20 years, AND simultaneously move him back in time? Peoples heads explode. I already outlined this. Do you follow? One goes forwards, the other goes backwards, bit of a problem there. Conclusion - you CANNOT include the 1980's Cold War in any adaption of the DKR themes into a film.

You're aware of the definition of "adapt" right?
adapt: make fit for, or change to suit a new purpose; "Adapt our native cuisine to the available food resources of the new country"

The book MUST be changed if it's going to fit, therefore making it an adaptation of the graphic novel.

... Which would, in turn, be an adaptation.

why the hell are you bolding and upsizing words like I'm blind or something. you also throw dictionary definitions at me. dont patronise me or i'll break your face . hopefully your comments are addressed below

Wouldn't the war on terror work just as well? You could keep all the same themes.

Rather than a Soviet attack plunging America into chaos by killing electricity, it could be a terrorist attack that does the same thing. And rather than Corto Maltese, Superman could be operating in Iran or Pakistan or something after a war breaks out. These scenarios are quite similarly to the ones Miller was writing about. Just different enemies.

Yeah definitly, many kinds of conflict could replace the Cold War. Two seperate issues come to mind though:

1. With terrorists or anything similarily topical, keep in mind that the Nolan movies have pretty much beaten that one over the head already. A new movie with a new direction that merely apes the whole Homeland Security thing again will only look tired and unoriginal and that will refelct poorly on Batman as a narrative device and concept. Also anything remotly attached to Homeland Security/War on Terror/Islamofacism is basically the same in this regard. it's getting boring twice, three times maybe, a fourth no way

2. Lets' say for instance it's America VS any other 'rogue state' (Santa Prisca!) or whatever. Anything you choose will open up a new range of themes to play with and IMO any possible film should allow room to play with these new toys. So suddenly you've got a much wider canvas than before and good filmmakers will find that what begun as a "DKR adaption" expands into a whole other beast entirely.

I'm saying that anyone who tries to adapt DKR will probably soon find it prudent to throw OUT the whole idea of an 'adaption' all together, and just make an original film that includes some of the attrative themes of DKR. The Joker stuff, new Robin, dystopic future, unruly youth, mindfcked Gotham citzens, Superman...all that can be done outside the mentality of "we're gonna make a DKR movie". Just make a whole other movie with all that stuff in it, loosen the bounds and you've got something at once more flexbile, timely, and sincere, an original work with far more integrity.


And again personally I'd also include elements of Return of the Joker and Knightfall and make it a trilogy about the passing of a legacy, but that's just me. Bane would replace the mutant leader in Act1 of movie One, afterwhich he'd be a recurring threat who becomes more dangerous with both the use of Venom and the consolodation of the power behind him that is the Santa Priscan government. SP is the gleaming, sweltering emerging tropoical nation where much of the films would be set. We see flashbacks to all three past Robins while a new Robin moves beyond the pixie boots and into the Batman Beyond suit by trilogies end. Old woman Selina has a league of slinky covert Catwomen prowling Gotham, Riddler is a TV personality, Penguins hot daughter runs the bar scene, Terry McGuiness a trainee cop. I once wrote an outline for the 1st act of number 1, it was all worked out nicely

 

[Crook]

question
what is that in your avvy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4

again
all I'm not talking about changing the story and or cutting things out
although id prefer if the story was changed a bit for the film, thats not my main gripe.
Im talking about re-writing a the comic dialogue to produce a screenplay, as opposed to taking the dialogue from the comic, that is what i am mainly against here.

Fair enough. But realize though that there are many that consider DKR, as a story (read: not limited to the comic medium), is very good on it's own right. Therefore a translation to the film would not require many drastic changes. As Snyder has pointed out many times, the comic itself has lent itself as a storyboard format to lay the groundwork for the film.

O rly? Ok try and keep track of this in your head...

1. The Cold War must occur in the 1980's. That cannot be messed with
2. Public audiences are accustomed to the fact that Batman, as seen in films, is set in the present day, and is roughly about 30-35 years old.
3. Now what happens when you age batman by 20 years, AND simultaneously move him back in time? Peoples heads explode. I already outlined this. Do you follow? One goes forwards, the other goes backwards, bit of a problem there. Conclusion - you CANNOT include the 1980's Cold War in any adaption of the DKR themes into a film.

DKR would conceivably not be connected to any previous films and is a stand-alone project. Therefore, there are no pre-conditions to which the adaptation must follow.

And by your logic, BB and TDK would not have been possible as you are de-aging Bruce (compared to the 4 films), and simultaneously moving forward in time by setting it in present day (as opposed to the 90s). Not to mention that the setting itself is remarkably different from what Burton and Schumacher had depicted. Did people's heads explode? Of course not. They understand this is a NEW take on the character and has nothing to do with prior incarnations.

 

[TheBat812]

I'm probably in the minority, but I'm sick of these graphic novel adaptations. Leave them on the page for the imagination to enjoy. Create something new for the silver screen.

 

[DARKxGOTHAMITE]

i would love to see Snyder bring TKJ to the screen

 

[margon]

^ get your acronyms right goddammit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4DKR would conceivably not be connected to any previous films and is a stand-alone project. Therefore, there are no pre-conditions to which the adaptation must follow.

in a perfect world where everyone weren't critical morons and/or had the time or inclination to follow superhero movies like we do, then yeah, they would get it. But hey look how many people went into BB thinking it was a sequel. I guess if you really think that most people (nay, the studio) would have NO problem with this type of weirdarse chronal/dimensional shift then there's nothing left to say. But me I would bet my girlfriend that it would be a problem and the studio (generally conservative) would say no way before we even got a chance to see if audiences could click with it or not. People as a mass group are pretty dumb, especially when it comes to looking at movies. After the movie's done, okay then they can deal with alot things they've just seen, but 99% of action movie marketing is treating people like morons and making them feel good about it

The fact that it's a brand new take will be clear by the new actors, new visual style, time in between etc and that's cool. But the fact they're looking at a grey haired Batman bopping it in while Regan was Prez, that's just weird, ask anyone. So why not just a make a 'DKR movie' that's NOT set in the Cold War? Easy. but then of course the point remains that it's no longer DKR and you may as well just blow it open to whatever you want it to be.

Your points about the current trilogy, I don't the shift between cast, content and setting from Schumacher to Nolan are nearly as extreme as they would be for the DKR movie we're talking about. Certainly it's extreme in tone (gay to non-gay) but again the crucial factor here is there's an actual real time period attached, one that's doesn't fit the one we're sitting in, while the batman also has an actual age attached, one that doesn't fit anything we've seen before.

It'd be like
"Hey I thought the last movie was about the War On Terror, how is this one about the Russians, I thought we beat them?"
"No this is one's in the future see, Batman's old"
"So we're gonna fight the Russians in the future?"
"Apparently. And we're also gonna wear neon leg warmers and rollerskates and say 'gnarly' alot. Yeah, like actual roller skates".

Also isn't there something to be said about preserving continuity from the current batch of films? Wouldn't that be ideal. Make it easier for normal audiences and MUCH more satisfying for fans I would expect.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I don't get what you are saying Margon. Are you saying that a one shot comic couldn't be made into a one shot film?

 

[margon]

I don't get what you are saying Margon. Are you saying that a one shot comic couldn't be made into a one shot film?

Not when the setting of the one-shot film, and the age of the one-shot character, is totally at odds with the real world date in which the film is released, no it should not be made. One goes backwards, the other goes forwards, wtf is that? Put yourself in the spot of a normal person here. Absolutely it should not be made, not when you can make it easy and just throw out the Cold War altogether and replace it with Santa Priscans. And voila it's 2036 instead of 1986. Much more fun.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Well Watchmen is still being set in the 80s is it not? I don't see how this would be a stupid idea. With the advertising that would come with any Batman film everyone should be able to realize it's a one shot. And those who don't are obviously too stupid to be allowed to watch films.

 

[margon]

yeah but Watchmen was not preceded by an earlier movie set in the present day with characters younger then they're gonna be when they go back to the future in the 1986.

and no starting a new direction with a new cast and new style does not make it alright, it's a still gonna be a massive wtf for most people when they realize this old arse batman is supposed to be crankin it somewhere in OUR past. these movies need HUGE audiences to turn a dollar. why make it any more difficult than it *needs* to be?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I see what you are saying. Maybe it would be better to set it in OUR future. But if the audience is so stupid to not realize that it's a one shot then they don't deserve to go to the cinema. Think of all the press coverage and advertisements a Batman movie would have. You gotta be literally brain-dead to not realize what is going on.

 

[I Am The Knight]

^Tell that to the people who b***ed and moaned about the Justice League film being made "during Nolan's time."

 

[Ace of Knaves]

lolz.

I just think there is nothing wrong with turning a one shot comic into a one shot film. If it is advertised properly, and I'm sure a Batman film would be, there is no excuse for people going "Oh well I thought this would be a sequel to the Nolan Bat-films".

 

[Two-Face]

Wasn't there a cartoon of TDKR during TAS run?

[YT]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QoZLPwRCjcQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QoZLPwRCjcQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YT]


I would love to SE DVD.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

haha thats sick! I don't remember that! Nice find 'Face

 

[Two-Face]

Yeah it is. great tribute to Miller's work from BTAS producers

 

[margon]

...