The point was raised in the Spider-man franchise thread that fan pressure resulted in Venom appearing in Spider-man 3 - much to the deprement of the movie and the character.
With all the talk about Catwoman (a character Team Nolan are not fond of using) the question is - will WB force the character to be included and if so will Chris Nolan resist? Does he have the power to resist? After all Burton and Raimi were helpless to not include characters forced on them even when they had the favor of the studio.
Thoughts?
Quote from: ral on Tue, 20 Oct 2009, 21:12
The point was raised in the Spider-man franchise thread that fan pressure resulted in Venom appearing in Spider-man 3 - much to the deprement of the movie and the character.
With all the talk about Catwoman (a character Team Nolan are not fond of using) the question is - will WB force the character to be included and if so will Chris Nolan resist? Does he have the power to resist? After all Burton and Raimi were helpless to not include characters forced on them even when they had the favor of the studio.
Thoughts?
Venom had no place in such an early Spiderman film especially since Raimi was never a fan of the character. He seemed completely shoehorned into the film, whereas Catwoman is a classic Batman character, and so far there has been no major fan pressure compelling Warner Bros to include her in the next film, only speculation as to who could play her were the filmmakers to decide to feature her.
Either way, I don't mind who Nolan includes in Batman 3, assuming he's going to do a third film as long as he is confident that the villains he decides to use will facillitate a strong script.
Nolan should use Bane in the next film. That would be awesome. I would love to see Nolan's take on a character like Bane.
Honestly, I think it'll be all WB can do to even bring Nolan back at this point. Assuming they can and acknowledging TDK's unfreakingprecedented success, something tells me their conversations with the guy will mostly be "right away, Mr. Nolan!" and that'll be about it.
Foisting characters on him? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it.
Quote from: ral on Tue, 20 Oct 2009, 21:12
the question is - will WB force the character to be included and if so will Chris Nolan resist?
Chris Nolan isn't going to go for anything like that. As far as the live action Batman film franchise goes, he's holding the cards.
WB can politely 'suggest' ... but mandating to Nolan on Batman?
That would actually be pretty funny to watch actually. ;D
QuoteDoes he have the power to resist?
Of course. Nolan presents himself as not being immediately apparent on wanting to work on another Batman film. Which is smart. The idea of him walking seems much more of a possibility, and that's a possibility I'm sure WB does not in any way want to see realized.
QuoteAfter all Burton and Raimi were helpless to not include characters forced on them even when they had the favor of the studio.
Thoughts?
I agree that Burton, Raimi, and Nolan all had/have the support of the studio in their respective franchises. But as far as Nolan goes, I think with the Joker having already been featured in TDK, along with Nolan being coy about returning to begin with, I think he finds himself with more of a margin of freedom than Burton and Raimi were dealt with.
If history has proven one thing about Hollywood, it is that studio's will make sequels with or without an original director returning.
It's a business, the money men pull the strings, especially on sequels! Theres not many blockbuster sequels in which directors have had total creative freedom. And thats the shame most of the time.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 14 Nov 2009, 15:12Theres not many blockbuster sequels in which directors have had total creative freedom. And thats the shame most of the time.
Umm, Batman Returns, Terminator 2, the Matrix sequels, The Godfather Part II and X2 all spring to mind.
Yea, I'm starting to think Nolan will just create a new villain rather than deal with the fan pressure/expectations.
Joss Whedon did that for his rejected Batman reboot script:
QuoteIn my version, there was actually a new [villain], it wasn't one of the classics - which is probably why they didn't use it. It was more of a 'Hannibal Lector' type - he was somebody already in Arkham Asylum that Bruce went and sort of studied with. It was a whole thing - I get very emotional about it, I still love the story. Maybe I'll get to do it as a comic one day.
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/08/12/joss-whedons-batman-it-existed/
Hmm. If Nolan decides not to come back... well, Joss Whedon is maybe not the ideal choice but from the sounds of it he's on a Nolan'ish wavelength. I'd give him a day in court if he could stay within the basic parameters Chris has established.
One can't help but wonder how much more time WB is going to give Chris though.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 15 Nov 2009, 08:20
One can't help but wonder how much more time WB is going to give Chris though.
Yeah, I agree. I wish they would just sack the c*** actually. Either at least signal your intent to do Batman 3, or move the hell on. He's dragging his feet.
What's the point of adding a brand new villain? You have one of the best, maybe the best rogues gallery in comic-book history for goodness sake! I hope Nolan does return, and he brings his own take on one of the established villains such as The Riddler or Catwoman. As for Joss Whedon, I've always considered him overrated. He doesn't have a cinematic eye and should really stick to TV, preferably the smug, overly-ironic teen drivel he seems to specialise in. By no means, let him anywhere near the Batman franchise.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun, 15 Nov 2009, 20:23As for Joss Whedon, I've always considered him overrated. He doesn't have a cinematic eye and should really stick to TV
I've never been big on Joss Whedon, but I've always preferred his comic book work to
anything he's done in live action. Which was something of a concern when he was once attached to a Wonder Woman movie some years back.
Quote from: The Joker on Mon, 16 Nov 2009, 14:12
I've never been big on Joss Whedon, but I've always preferred his comic book work to anything he's done in live action. Which was something of a concern when he was once attached to a Wonder Woman movie some years back.
I've been looking forward to a Wonder Woman film but would seriously go off the idea if Whedon was involved. It's a pity George Miller never got the final go-ahead to make a JLA movie. I actually liked the direction that film was taking, and for the most part I approved of the casting decisions. Still, it's probably better for each member of the JLA to get their own individual franchise before teaming them up.
I haven't been "watching" news and updates on Batman lately, I really hope that Nolan is still on so there will be at least one proper Batman trilogy. I think that the best possible film will result with Nolan being pretty much left alone to do what he wants with the story, the villains and the direction the film will take.
Also, I think that a JLA film would look like a big budget Halloween party. I'm all for a Wonder Woman solo movie, if it's done right.
Quote from: silenig on Fri, 20 Nov 2009, 01:02
I haven't been "watching" news and updates on Batman lately, I really hope that Nolan is still on so there will be at least one proper Batman trilogy. I think that the best possible film will result with Nolan being pretty much left alone to do what he wants with the story, the villains and the direction the film will take.
Also, I think that a JLA film would look like a big budget Halloween party. I'm all for a Wonder Woman solo movie, if it's done right.
Overall, as an idea a JLA movie would probably have been a bad idea, but I'm convinced George Miller, who's a fairly well respected filmmaker, could have done a decent job.
I also hope Nolan finishes his 'Bat Trilogy'. If he does no more after a third film in the franchise, I'm fine with that, but he really needs to demonstrate that the curse of the threequel can be broken. Besides, Batman's whole fugitive story needs to be resolved after the events of TDK.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Fri, 20 Nov 2009, 01:38Overall, as an idea a JLA movie would probably have been a bad idea, but I'm convinced George Miller, who's a fairly well respected filmmaker, could have done a decent job.
I was initially in favor of it (particularly as it clearly signaled the death of the Singerman "franchise") but the more stuff leaked out about it, the more apparent it became that it wasn't going to be my cup of tea. Still, in terms of cost vs. risk, it's the most efficient way to introduce the members of the JLA.
QuoteI also hope Nolan finishes his 'Bat Trilogy'. If he does no more after a third film in the franchise, I'm fine with that, but he really needs to demonstrate that the curse of the threequel can be broken. Besides, Batman's whole fugitive story needs to be resolved after the events of TDK.
Agreed. I trust I've suitably explained my views of the Nolanverse but I'm still invested in seeing a third entry because I want to see at least one non-sucky superhero trilogy. I'd want to see a filmmaker finish what he starts (a rarity in comics franchises).