Batman-Online.com

Just to explain the options
option #1 would be similar to what superman returns did; make it a sequel to Batman returns and ignore forever and robin
option #2 is self explanatory, basically batman triumphant
option #3 is self explanatory as well
option #4 is have batman in his later years, not really referencing the previous films but made in such a way you could believe they already happened
option #5 is similar to batman forever, have it believed the previous events did happen but without heavy references of them
option 6 and 7 are self explanatory.


I'd love to see an arkham asylum film (which fits option #4). If i got to choose how the next trilogy would go, i'd have the first film with arkham as a main theme, developing the asylum, having the thugs thrown in there but have the main plot become gotham city. The second film would be the 'batman trapped in the aslylum' moniker with the third film being arkham city.

If I had to choose which of the above NOT to pick it would be a complete reboot with an origin, batman begins already did it and as the recent spider-man movie is proving, people dont want to see the same origin told twice.

I would like an Arkham Asylum type of story, where Batman is forced to descend into Arkham to stop a hostage plot which has ties to a bigger threat to the city, sort of like The Rock, but with a sense of style somewhere between Burton and Nolan. You can also touch on villains previously unseen on film like Scarface, Croc, The Mad Hatter etc.

I wouldn't try to make it a trilogy though. I'd just tell a really good, fun/ dark and psychological Batman story with plenty of action for the action fiends. More detective work would be a plus as well.

Either a sequel to B&R or Returns, but I wouldn't mind a complete overhall either.

As a sequel to Retunrs, I mean something like Dark Knight Returns, helmed by Burton with Keaton as Batman, and someother dude as Superman...meh I can dream

either a returns sequel (i'll write the script!!!) or a complete reboot without batsy's origin.

Realistically speaking, reboot without origin, or loose sequel. Maybe start with the Riddler. He hasn't been used in live action since Jim Carrey, and many stories from the comics (and Arkham) show that he has a lot of potential to be a much more sophisticated, and evil, character. Not to mention, a proper Riddler story means more detective work for Batman.

Spaced out version: Make a sequel to Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton starring Michael Keaton, with Scarecrow, Two-Face and Catwoman. (yeah, dream on)

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Mon, 23 Jul  2012, 21:54


Spaced out version: Make a sequel to Batman Returns directed by Tim Burton starring Michael Keaton, with Scarecrow, Two-Face and Catwoman. (yeah, dream on)

*dreams*

lol.

We wont see this but it would be cool to do what the Hush comics did and kind of acknowledge all the previous batman films as having happened but not go into detail trying to explain the continuity. Yes I'm aware they overlap but leave the 'explaining' to the fanboys. Have say Devitos penguin, one of the catwomen (preferrably Michelles), Cranes scarecrow, possibly Rhas Al Ghul, basically any of the previous actors from either series who want to come back return.

With Joel Schumacher having 3 straight flops and being practically detested by the bat communuty, he's out. Val Kilmer was a decent Batman but he's been irrelevant for 15 years in the industry. Clooney has star power and many believe he could do a good job in a darker setting although not sure if he would return. Obviously Keaton is still the man. I could possibly see Burton return, it wasn't bitter between him and WB, he did produce the third film and came close to directing superman in the late 90's.

I wasn't necissarily saying Arkham has to be a trilogy but it seems if you wanted to do that story full circle it would need 2 main films (one with batman in the Asylum, one in the City) and a film setting it up. Though I think it could also be done as a stand alone film or a two parter. Arkham City was my favourite game but I would have mixed feelings about the overall setting is probably not as good for a movie especially trying to fit that plot into two hours. That being said the concept of villains essentially going up against other villains would be a cool thing to pull off.

A two part film could be good as well. Have the first film lead up to how we see the beginning of the first game; Your standard Batman film fighting villains in gotham city but when he arrests the mastermind (which may or may not be the Joker, it would be good but may be difficult to pull off, the riddler could be a good replacement) near the end we find it was a set up leading to the next film. It would be one of the best cliffhangers of all time seeing Batman find out he's trapped in the asylum and the camera panning out on him before fading to the credits. People loved the fact that Burton turned a superhero film into a horror/thriller and the Arkham Asylum is the best way to bring that atmosphere back.

i might break out the pen and write some fanfic :D

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 24 Jul  2012, 02:50
i might break out the pen and write some fanfic :D

we should team up. Or have an arkham style role playing game!

A true sequel to Batman returns.... essentially a remake of Batman Forever....

I'm realistic about the chances of WB continuing the Burtonverse.

So I voted: complete reboot without origin.

What kind of film should the next Batman movie be? 

A good one.

:D

But seriously, a screenplay with a strong and heroic characterization of Bruce Wayne/Batman driving the action, well-developed villains with solid motivations, an engaging plot that makes sense, and character relationships that develop properly would be a good start for the next one.

I think the next film should have no ties to the Nolan franchise, which qualifies it as a reboot.  While I disagreed with some of the choices in telling Batman's origin in Batman Begins, I feel like retelling the origin wouldn't be beneficial.  Not only are origin stories getting tiresome these days, but doing it over again will be met with the same "been there, done that" response that The Amazing Spider-Man got.

So I vote reboot, without origin.  I realize that the Bond series from Dr. No to Die Another Day were all meant to be sequels to one another, but think how they transitioned from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye.  Completely different cast and crew, different style/tone, and no references to previous movies or explaining how we got from the previous film to here (Licence to Kill ends with Bond still revoked of 00-status).

While previous attempts at rebooting a comic book franchise without an origin (The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: War Zone) didn't really take off, I think it could still work if the writing is up to par.  If Batman gets a badass intro in the beginning like Brosnan's Bond did and the writing makes you care about him and his quest in the story, then the audience will be on board and won't need to see this new Batman's origin. 

GoldenEye did something new in the franchise by having Bond fight his former ally and making things more personal than usual.  The next Batman should give us a new kind of conflict, too, that hasn't been seen in other iterations.

Aesthetically, I think it's time for a vision that embraces the comic book origins in the way that the Marvel Studios films embrace them, rather than try to bury them.  I'm tired of hearing the argument that people wouldn't buy the Batman comic book aesthetic on film while The Avengers looked more or less ripped from the comic book pages and made billions worldwide while met with praise from comic fans and average moviegoers alike.

So let's see a Batsuit that's not all black rubber for once.  The full Batcave.  The Batmobile with the bathead battering ram.  The haunted mansion-style Arkham.

Oh, and let's get an actor whose Batman voice doesn't become the brunt of jokes, impressions, and YouTube parodies.  That'd be a nice upgrade.

Quote from: riddler on Tue, 24 Jul  2012, 03:00

Quote from: Catwoman on Tue, 24 Jul  2012, 02:50
i might break out the pen and write some fanfic :D

we should team up. Or have an arkham style role playing game!

you do yours. i'll do mine. people here can vote which one is better  ;D

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 24 Jul  2012, 07:29
What kind of film should the next Batman movie be? 

A good one.

:D

But seriously, a screenplay with a strong and heroic characterization of Bruce Wayne/Batman driving the action, well-developed villains with solid motivations, an engaging plot that makes sense, and character relationships that develop properly would be a good start for the next one.

I think the next film should have no ties to the Nolan franchise, which qualifies it as a reboot.  While I disagreed with some of the choices in telling Batman's origin in Batman Begins, I feel like retelling the origin wouldn't be beneficial.  Not only are origin stories getting tiresome these days, but doing it over again will be met with the same "been there, done that" response that The Amazing Spider-Man got.

So I vote reboot, without origin.  I realize that the Bond series from Dr. No to Die Another Day were all meant to be sequels to one another, but think how they transitioned from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye.  Completely different cast and crew, different style/tone, and no references to previous movies or explaining how we got from the previous film to here (Licence to Kill ends with Bond still revoked of 00-status).

While previous attempts at rebooting a comic book franchise without an origin (The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: War Zone) didn't really take off, I think it could still work if the writing is up to par.  If Batman gets a badass intro in the beginning like Brosnan's Bond did and the writing makes you care about him and his quest in the story, then the audience will be on board and won't need to see this new Batman's origin. 

GoldenEye did something new in the franchise by having Bond fight his former ally and making things more personal than usual.  The next Batman should give us a new kind of conflict, too, that hasn't been seen in other iterations.

Aesthetically, I think it's time for a vision that embraces the comic book origins in the way that the Marvel Studios films embrace them, rather than try to bury them.  I'm tired of hearing the argument that people wouldn't buy the Batman comic book aesthetic on film while The Avengers looked more or less ripped from the comic book pages and made billions worldwide while met with praise from comic fans and average moviegoers alike.

So let's see a Batsuit that's not all black rubber for once.  The full Batcave.  The Batmobile with the bathead battering ram.  The haunted mansion-style Arkham.

Oh, and let's get an actor whose Batman voice doesn't become the brunt of jokes, impressions, and YouTube parodies.  That'd be a nice upgrade.

Batman 89 also qualifies as a reboot without an origin; rebooting from the Adam west franchise and the very first scene has Batman in costume. Not many superheroes can be done without an origin, in fact I think Batman might be the only one. Mainly because he doesn't have super powers so there's no need to explain how he got his toys. Most people will accept the fact that he's rich and he can afford it. Like you mentioned, the next Batman (if it isn't Keaton himself) should be more Keaton, less Bale. Even the Nolanites biggest argument about Keaton is his other works (ie Mr. Mom) while Bale gets heavily criticized and parodies for his voice.

Arkham has been one of those themes that hasn't been addressed. Schumacher brought in in for Batman Forever and people seemed to like that it brought in Arkham and the end. Batman and Robin for all it's faults did have the most of arkham asylum in the original series. People enjoyed Arham being key to the Batman Begins but Nolan didnt seem to touch it again in the last two films.

Now doesn't seem like the Nolan series will be continued but I wonder if he did lay the seeds for a fourth film; As we all know in each of his films the next villain has been referenced in the first 2 films; begins references two face and the joker, the dark knight has the reference of the suit being fine against cats.. The dark knight rises does reference alligators in the sewers (killer croc)

I would like to see that B&R sequel that never happened.

Back to reality I would like a complete reboot without origin. A mixture of a Burton and Nolan type film.
A few returning villains in the new franchise like Joker, Two-Face, and Catwoman. Some that haven't been used in a while like Riddler, Penguin, and Mr. Freeze. Also some new villains that never been used on the big screen before like Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Black Mask, and Hugo Strange.

Quote from: gotham22 on Wed, 25 Jul  2012, 14:44
I would like to see that B&R sequel that never happened.

Back to reality I would like a complete reboot without origin. A mixture of a Burton and Nolan type film.
A few returning villains in the new franchise like Joker, Two-Face, and Catwoman. Some that haven't been used in a while like Riddler, Penguin, and Mr. Freeze. Also some new villains that never been used on the big screen before like Harley Quinn, Deadshot, Black Mask, and Hugo Strange.

I agree that's the happy medium. Gritty is good to an extent but I think we all agree they can lighten up on the 'everything must be grounded' rule. Burton's first batman film had the right mix, it was fairly gritty but took some liberties to have some fun with the characters. Batman Returns did go a little too far off the edge with the entire Penguin character.

Great points BatmAngelus, except this one.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 24 Jul  2012, 07:29

So let's see a Batsuit that's not all black rubber for once.

The day they release a live action film where Batman is dressed in anything except total black, and is not intended as parody, it will be the first day I will not watch a batfilm in the theater! This is my only gripe with the Arkham games, they nailed everything but had to use that crappy blue/gray suit that looks good only in animation or comics artwork :) At least the ears were long.

i think it would be badass if he wore the costume like he has in the animated series and the comics.

For me, the definitive Batman suit will always be the traditional grey and blue/black spandex costume from the comics. No Batman movie will ever be definitive until it features that suit. I think the best live-action costume to date was in Batman: Dead End.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chickslovethecar.com%2Fimages%2Fuploaded%2F4222005115559Dead%2520End%2520Suit.jpg&hash=abef6ffbab73c7b1dce6f8dc7cb61f8757da4a32)

It's by far the most faithful to the comics. Simple and iconic. I'd love it if Batman wore a suit like that in the next movie. If it has to be padded/armoured/made of rubber, then so be it. But I'd prefer it to be made from a lighter, flexible fabric so he can move more freely. The tricky part is finding an actor with the right physical build to wear it.

I want to see Gotham City be a character in and of itself.  I respect Nolan and crew for what they did for their series, on a whole watching all three films, I love that they were able to present three movies all tied in with one another and that they all worked together to make one story.  I always wished I could have had that with Burton's Batman universe (which then got transferred to Schumacher).  The original "series" just didn't have the continuity that Nolan's films had.  Burton even though making Batman Returns a non sequel sequel did at least throw us fans some nods to the characters and actors from the first film.   But having Batman himself change actors, or different Harvey Dents, always made it hard for me to feel like it was a true story universe. 

I would love to see the next Batman series be a real mix of what Nolan brought to the table (lots of characters and story arcs) with the images of the Burton films.  Nothing compares to what Anton Furst did in the first film.  Every single piece of production design helped prop the characters.  You could feel Gotham city, you could see its internal guts out there on display in almost every frame of film.  I missed that in Nolan's films.  The Bat vehicles in Nolan's films grew on me, but the Tumbler is not a Batmobile in the true Batman fan sense.

I didn't have that many problems with Nolan changing some of the origins and the way he presented the characters, as I felt the same excitement as I did when Tim Burton's Batman was announced.  I remember seeing those images of Keaton in a black suit with a different bat emblem.  I knew it was Batman, but this was something different, this was Batman on the silver screen. I wanted to see how Burton saw things, I remember when I watched B89 and Billy Dee Williams was up there on screen as Harvey Dent, being a comic book fan I marveled that they were laying the ground work for Two Face...  It was different, but it was how Burton was presenting  the characters.  I felt the same way when I heard the rumors about how Burton was going to handle Robin in Batman Returns.  I WANTED to see how he transferred a semi- Jason Tood background with an auto mechanic as Robin.  It sounded so radical it interested me because it was something new.   So Nolan's views on characters and how he presented them were ok with me, they are a product of their time. 

So I figure a new series should keep opening new doors on how we see the supporting characters, maybe make us question Bruce Wayne ( Burton did that with Keaton), but please bring back the character and style of Gotham City and all of Batman's "wonderful toys"

what about a batman beyond movie?

unless it's an arkham asylum film, I'd prefer to see Robin brought back for the next film. We still haven't seen an entire film with only batman and robin teaming up since the adam west film. Not sure if an origin is required as schumacher already did it but it would be nice to have a more serious take on Robin.

If they ever go that route, it's maybe time to go with a young Robin. Not a 18year old playing a teenager, or someone in his late 20s playing an 18-year old, but a child Robin. It's funny, but Kick-Ass sold me on the idea that a child sidekick can work.

The only downside is that if they make such a film and it succeeds, and then make a sequel 2 years later (this is the minimum gap between comic films of the same series, I think), the child actor will be noticeably older.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Fri, 27 Jul  2012, 21:00
If they ever go that route, it's maybe time to go with a young Robin. Not a 18year old playing a teenager, or someone in his late 20s playing an 18-year old, but a child Robin. It's funny, but Kick-Ass sold me on the idea that a child sidekick can work.

The only downside is that if they make such a film and it succeeds, and then make a sequel 2 years later (this is the minimum gap between comic films of the same series, I think), the child actor will be noticeably older.

Wasn't dick grayson 12 in the comics when he first signed on as robin and played the character well into his 20's before donning Nightwing? And I think people prefer Nightwing to Robin, there's a debate about which one makes the better sidekick although some people are hoping for a solo Nightwing film which would definitely be better than a Robin film. Also according to the comics didn't Robin join batman in year three for the bat, or was that just one run?

I know at the time of the dark knight (which is supposed to be one year into batman), he claimed dick grayson should be in a crib somewhere so by the dark knight rises he'd be around 10. Doesn't seem that they continue that series but if they do, he'd be about the proper age.

Nolan's philosophy with Batman Begins seemed to be that if Burton or Schumacher did it, by and large he'd avoid it. The next director might do well to have a similar approach.

I realize the Nolanverse has a lot of fans but if there's one thing that bugged me, it's the seeming handwringing, borderline apologetic psychology underlying the movies. "We'll put a chick named Selina into a tight black outfit but we won't call her 'Catwoman'. That'd be too comic booky." Bite me, you insecure jerks.

Assuming a Marvel-style shared universe is off the table, I think a neat approach for future Batman films is to eschew continuity entirely. Do an anthology franchise along the lines of what Legends of the Dark Knight was back in the 90's. Do self-contained, unrelated stories where a director comes onboard, makes his version of Batman and then moves on to something else. One and done. No continuity, no ongoing narrative, a brand new (or mostly new) cast each time out.

You could have a David Fincher ultra-gritty, ultra dark thriller one time and then have Robert Rodriguez do a Sin City-style move the next time, on and on and on. Hell, I can't be the only one wondering what a Guillermo del Toro Batman film might be like. Don't try to top Nolan. In the public eye, it's not likely to happen. Just do a new thing every time out. Batman's the most versatile character in all of comics. Other characters probably couldn't survive this type of treatment. Batman? He'd thrive in it.

Or Shadow of the Bat, this comic had some good self-contained stories too. This is a GREAT idea that would lead to much more interesting films than a copycat of Marvel's "filmverse", but maybe it wouldn't work with general audiences, and these audiences bring the money for WB.

I'd like to see a movie that is fun to watch. I'm all for darkness but TDK Rises was just too drab for my tastes. Yet Batman Returns gets blasted for having nothing to cheer about. Fantasy ala Arkham Asylum/Arkham City has to come back. Again for the twenty billionth time: I can watch the Burton flicks over and over and they hold my interest. Things in TDK Rises stick out like a beaten down thumb when you apply logic to it.

there's definitely a balance to be found between gritty and fantasy. Throughout the Nolan series a lot of people didnt like his 'everything must be grounded' rule and of course Schumacher gave us too many moments where we rolled our eyes saying "seriously?" Batman Returns did get slightly too far off the deep end. Definitely enjoyable to watch as a popcorn film but once you start analyzing (especially the notion that the Penguin could be raised in the sewer, learn to speak english and somehow rarely get sighted for 33 years) it does stray from realism. Ideally the first batman film has the right mix IMO.

Why can't comic book movies do what the comics do? It's not like the comics always follow the same continuity and pick up where the last one left off. Nor do they reboot themselves constantly after a bad comic of a storyline/run is finished. I brought it up before but the Hush comics are a great example of it; they have panels featuring the Adam West, Michael Keaton, and Christian Bale batmobiles side by side basically encompassing all those versions. Obviously those are 3 separate universes but instead of over analyzing the writers just expected the reader to just go with it. And since it was such an excellent comic, the reader is forgiving and doesn't need to over analyze.

So why not do something like that with the next film? Bruce Wayne is Batman, he has these bat toys, a cave, a butler, a utility belt and a batmobile. We all know this, we've alreay been told how he got them, we dont need to know again. Start out the film with Bruce Wayne as batman.

Now as for how to handle the villain, that's a tougher one. Schumacher got heavily criticized for having Two Face and Mr. Freeze start out as villains at the start without any kind of back story. Now granted it's probably because those villains have an interesting backstory. If it were the Joker or Bane or Deadshot that would have been fine. If it's the type of film where 1 or 2 villains play a big role I'd say give them an origin but if it's an Arkham type plot where you'll have multiple villains, nothing wrong with having them in villain state.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Tue, 31 Jul  2012, 10:20
Or Shadow of the Bat, this comic had some good self-contained stories too. This is a GREAT idea that would lead to much more interesting films than a copycat of Marvel's "filmverse", but maybe it wouldn't work with general audiences, and these audiences bring the money for WB.

I liked Shadow of the Bat a lot. If I've got a criticism of the Batman books in the 90's, it'd be that stuff like SOTB and, to a lesser extent, Legend of the Dark Knight didn't always have the opportunity to be their own entities. I thought of Batman and Detective as the core franchise books while the other two had a more unique, separated identity. I'd have preferred it if SOTB have been used as a dumping ground for Batman stories set in the more modern day but not necessarily worry too much about how it fits in continuity-wise. Forcing it into crossovers like Knightfall, Zero Hour, and other things didn't necessarily help the book, if you ask me.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  1 Aug  2012, 06:31
I'd like to see a movie that is fun to watch. I'm all for darkness but TDK Rises was just too drab for my tastes. Yet Batman Returns gets blasted for having nothing to cheer about. Fantasy ala Arkham Asylum/Arkham City has to come back. Again for the twenty billionth time: I can watch the Burton flicks over and over and they hold my interest. Things in TDK Rises stick out like a beaten down thumb when you apply logic to it.

Maybe it's because I'm finally acclimated to the formula but I guess I don't see how TDKRises is any worse than TDK from a logic standpoint. I've only seen it once but I enjoyed it when I did. I'm not going to become some ardent Nolan defender though.

I wouldn't mind seeing something more in line with BTAS. There was darkness to spare but it never overpowered the coolness of seeing Batman do his thing.

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  1 Aug  2012, 16:02Why can't comic book movies do what the comics do? It's not like the comics always follow the same continuity and pick up where the last one left off. Nor do they reboot themselves constantly after a bad comic of a storyline/run is finished.

Have you read any DC stuff from the last, oh, thirty years or so? :)

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  1 Aug  2012, 16:02I brought it up before but the Hush comics are a great example of it; they have panels featuring the Adam West, Michael Keaton, and Christian Bale batmobiles side by side basically encompassing all those versions. Obviously those are 3 separate universes but instead of over analyzing the writers just expected the reader to just go with it. And since it was such an excellent comic, the reader is forgiving and doesn't need to over analyze.

I'd love to see something like that in a movie. I'd even award bonus points if they threw in something a little more esoteric like those weird ice glide vehicles from B&R. And not anything to make a big production out of. Just tuck 'em away in the background as easter eggs for those paying attention.

Quote from: Catwoman on Thu, 26 Jul  2012, 10:50
what about a batman beyond movie?

With Keaton as Bruce Wayne?  Sounds cool, but he's about 19 years too young.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed,  1 Aug  2012, 16:39

Quote from: riddler on Wed,  1 Aug  2012, 16:02I brought it up before but the Hush comics are a great example of it; they have panels featuring the Adam West, Michael Keaton, and Christian Bale batmobiles side by side basically encompassing all those versions. Obviously those are 3 separate universes but instead of over analyzing the writers just expected the reader to just go with it. And since it was such an excellent comic, the reader is forgiving and doesn't need to over analyze.

I'd love to see something like that in a movie. I'd even award bonus points if they threw in something a little more esoteric like those weird ice glide vehicles from B&R. And not anything to make a big production out of. Just tuck 'em away in the background as easter eggs for those paying attention.

I can't remember the exact quote of those panels but it basically stated 'you've had quite the diversity' as well the some what controversial BTAS episode which mocked Joel Schumacher does the same.

Basically what i'm getting at is comics have runs which are not a sequel to any other works aside from the origin and essentially are loose with the continuity. Bryan Singer tried to do this with Superman returns; again this is another case of audiences criticising it due to disliking the film. At the time the general attitude was "the last 2 movies sucked so good for this one to ignore them"

After 3 "realistic" Bat films I want very much a return to the more stylised Batman films of Tim Burton. Unfortunately that dream while popular will never completely happen. Cos you need Tim Burton again to truly return to that style. So while they could bring back something similar it won't look totally how we would expect.

I know people say that Burton and Keaton should complete their "trilogy". I don't think there is any point to that in fairness. Burton's films were never designed as a trilogy like you get today, just installments. And despite it being popular with fans to say "Batman Forever" was a reboot I'm afraid not. The word reboot never existed (thankfully) back in 1995 and I specifically remember everyone saying at the time it was the third movie despite a vastly different style. I wait for the day that terrible reboot word is exterminated forever.

I think they should also take great pains to ensure they don't trail off again and end up with a flick like "Batman and Robin" though. Avoid the cartoony quality at all costs.

Most importantly however silly it may sound put Batman's name back in the title! Never liked calling the series "The Dark Knight". To make matters worse they've now dumped Superman's name from his new movie. Like their embarrassed to call it what it is. While "Batman Begins" is a strangely sounding title I'm glad they made an effort to conjure up something that tied in with previous titles like "Returns" in some way.

I'd like to see something where Batman is a lot more like a detective. A hidden wraith who sneaks around using his forensic kit, trying to solve murders ala Long Halloween. Something smaller scale in comparison to blowing out bridges, etc would be better after TDKR I think.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 16 Aug  2012, 01:31
I'd like to see something where Batman is a lot more like a detective. A hidden wraith who sneaks around using his forensic kit, trying to solve murders ala Long Halloween. Something smaller scale in comparison to blowing out bridges, etc would be better after TDKR I think.

yeah thats why I'm hoping for the riddler, I think burtons third film would have done that. Sadly Batman used very little detective skills (only for finding selina kyle) in the third film and even the second we were promised to see more of it but he was played more as the detective cop who has the detective title but uses phsyical brawn more (ie stallone in demolition man).

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 15 Aug  2012, 18:25After 3 "realistic" Bat films I want very much a return to the more stylised Batman films of Tim Burton. Unfortunately that dream while popular will never completely happen. Cos you need Tim Burton again to truly return to that style. So while they could bring back something similar it won't look totally how we would expect.

Nonsense, there are other filmmakers who could bring a stylization to the material. Maybe not exactly what Burton would've done but I'm not even sure Burton of today would do what Burton back then would've done. Namely, I doubt Johnny Depp would've been in Batman 3.

But anyway, imagine a reboot directed by Guillermo del Toro. Something tells me he wouldn't make a Nolan'ish "crime thriller". Of course, a del Toro Batman movie might not match up tonally with Snyder's MOS... an important consideration if WB ever wants to develop a shared universe. Frankly, I'm sick of these exclusive superhero movies from WB but whatever.

As for the name stuff... yeah, that bugs me too. His name is Batman. Use it somewhere in the title for crying out loud. Call it "Batman Gets Rebooted Again" for all I care, just use his name in the title.

I do think Burton was on a roll when he did B89/BR. But I loved his work on Dark Shadows, how he gets in his social commentaries, the mix of quirky humour and darkness. And of course the gorgeous visuals. I'd have him back in a heartbeat, but can't see that happening - either from WB or the man himself, who probably thinks he's done his take and he's moved on. If they go for a younger Batman in the reboot, but still somewhat established, something like Dark Moon Rising would be good, I think. Something which can lend moody visuals, hint at (or embrace fully, whatever they want) supernatural, fantastical things out there and still have the grit.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 16 Aug  2012, 07:29

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Wed, 15 Aug  2012, 18:25After 3 "realistic" Bat films I want very much a return to the more stylised Batman films of Tim Burton. Unfortunately that dream while popular will never completely happen. Cos you need Tim Burton again to truly return to that style. So while they could bring back something similar it won't look totally how we would expect.

Nonsense, there are other filmmakers who could bring a stylization to the material. Maybe not exactly what Burton would've done but I'm not even sure Burton of today would do what Burton back then would've done. Namely, I doubt Johnny Depp would've been in Batman 3.

Yep your right. Not saying Burton is the only one who can do it. Others can of course in their own way that's what I very much want on the eighth film. Wow, eighth film! I remember when there were just 3 now we've reached that number.

But anyway, imagine a reboot directed by Guillermo del Toro. Something tells me he wouldn't make a Nolan'ish "crime thriller". Of course, a del Toro Batman movie might not match up tonally with Snyder's MOS... an important consideration if WB ever wants to develop a shared universe. Frankly, I'm sick of these exclusive superhero movies from WB but whatever.

I wouldn't want a Justice League type series. It's been done very superbly by Marvel. A DC version I think may end up looking like a ripoff idea. Yes I know Justice League came before but still Marvel have now beaten them to the screen. And I wouldn't want it to constrain the Batman series by having to tie in with events that would be upcoming in a team up film. I've never liked Justice League to be honest. Well actually Batman being in it. It always makes him look weak because he is after all a guy in a suit and nothing more. Ever read Crisis on Infinite Earths? There's a great scene at the end where all the super heroes unleash an attack on the Anti-Monitor. Batman and Robin however are forced to stand back and not get involved as they would be decimated. I figure we would get a terrible scene like that in a film. I shudder to imagine Ryan Reynold's awful Green Lantern sharing a scene and cracking puns with a new Batman too.

As for the name stuff... yeah, that bugs me too. His name is Batman. Use it somewhere in the title for crying out loud. Call it "Batman Gets Rebooted Again" for all I care, just use his name in the title.

Well it may not be a reboot. Maybe they'll do a "Batman Forever" carrying on but with a whole new cast and storyline. Time will tell.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 16 Aug  2012, 13:07
I do think Burton was on a roll when he did B89/BR. But I loved his work on Dark Shadows, how he gets in his social commentaries, the mix of quirky humour and darkness. And of course the gorgeous visuals. I'd have him back in a heartbeat, but can't see that happening - either from WB or the man himself, who probably thinks he's done his take and he's moved on. If they go for a younger Batman in the reboot, but still somewhat established, something like Dark Moon Rising would be good, I think. Something which can lend moody visuals, hint at (or embrace fully, whatever they want) supernatural, fantastical things out there and still have the grit.

Burton is actually considering a sequel to "Beetlejuice" all these years later with Michal Keaton involved. If he's feeling nostalgic about certain other projects he once did around the same time you never know lol

It would be so cool if they announced they were both returning to Batman after all these years. What a dream project. But I guess you can't turn the clock back everytime.

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Thu, 16 Aug  2012, 17:56

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 16 Aug  2012, 13:07
I do think Burton was on a roll when he did B89/BR. But I loved his work on Dark Shadows, how he gets in his social commentaries, the mix of quirky humour and darkness. And of course the gorgeous visuals. I'd have him back in a heartbeat, but can't see that happening - either from WB or the man himself, who probably thinks he's done his take and he's moved on. If they go for a younger Batman in the reboot, but still somewhat established, something like Dark Moon Rising would be good, I think. Something which can lend moody visuals, hint at (or embrace fully, whatever they want) supernatural, fantastical things out there and still have the grit.

Burton is actually considering a sequel to "Beetlejuice" all these years later with Michal Keaton involved. If he's feeling nostalgic about certain other projects he once did around the same time you never know lol

It would be so cool if they announced they were both returning to Batman after all these years. What a dream project. But I guess you can't turn the clock back everytime.

As it is batman returns is the only sequel he has done and there are several of his projects which easily could have been sequels (beetlejuice, Edward scissorhands, planet of the apes, charlie and the chocolate factory, alice in wonderland) he didnt see that enthusiastic to do a sequel to batman, possibly why he got the carte blanche for it.

There are some decent stories with Batman later in his career, wouldnt be too much of a stretch to do a '20 years later' scenario. Even a sequel taking place after a few years may work. Keaton is aging but they could cleverly write that in on his life taking a toll, Michelle Pfeiffer still looks great after all those years.

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 17 Aug  2012, 17:36There are some decent stories with Batman later in his career, wouldnt be too much of a stretch to do a '20 years later' scenario. Even a sequel taking place after a few years may work. Keaton is aging but they could cleverly write that in on his life taking a toll, Michelle Pfeiffer still looks great after all those years.

Part of me would love for Burton to come back. But another part of me thinks that because we've seen what Burton can do (which was amazing), other filmmakers should have a shot.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 17 Aug  2012, 18:11

Quote from: riddler on Fri, 17 Aug  2012, 17:36There are some decent stories with Batman later in his career, wouldnt be too much of a stretch to do a '20 years later' scenario. Even a sequel taking place after a few years may work. Keaton is aging but they could cleverly write that in on his life taking a toll, Michelle Pfeiffer still looks great after all those years.

Part of me would love for Burton to come back. But another part of me thinks that because we've seen what Burton can do (which was amazing), other filmmakers should have a shot.

Burton actually did want the first batman film to be one of the 'end of career' stories but was pressured into making it into more of an early one.

I'd really like to see the next series be an established world, where Batman and the villains have already met and know each other.

^Agreed.

And I know that Nolan had the right to end The Dark Knight Rises however the heck he wanted to, but I wish it hadn't been an "End of Batman" movie.

Part of that is because I found all of those elements to be sloppily handled in the film.  But another part of it is because it would've been easier for the franchise's future if Bruce had stayed as Batman at the end.  Like the Burton-to-Schumacher transition or the Bond films, they could've used the Nolan films as a vague history, built off of an established Batman with established villains, and developed things from there in the next series of movies.  You could bring back Scarecrow with the understanding that he and Batman fought before. 

They could still do this for the reboot, I just think it'd have been an easier sell if The Dark Knight Rises wasn't about the end of his career.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 18 Aug  2012, 17:58
^Agreed.

And I know that Nolan had the right to end The Dark Knight Rises however the heck he wanted to, but I wish it hadn't been an "End of Batman" movie.

Part of that is because I found all of those elements to be sloppily handled in the film.  But another part of it is because it would've been easier for the franchise's future if Bruce had stayed as Batman at the end.  Like the Burton-to-Schumacher transition or the Bond films, they could've used the Nolan films as a vague history, built off of an established Batman with established villains, and developed things from there in the next series of movies.  You could bring back Scarecrow with the understanding that he and Batman fought before. 

They could still do this for the reboot, I just think it'd have been an easier sell if The Dark Knight Rises wasn't about the end of his career.

The other tough thing is that this entir series practically maps out his entire career aside from him fighting the mobs and escaped lunatics for a year between begins and the dark knight. So while you could easily put an interquel between any of the Burton/Schumacher films, there's no room in the Nolan films.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat, 18 Aug  2012, 17:58And I know that Nolan had the right to end The Dark Knight Rises however the heck he wanted to, but I wish it hadn't been an "End of Batman" movie.

Part of that is because I found all of those elements to be sloppily handled in the film.  But another part of it is because it would've been easier for the franchise's future if Bruce had stayed as Batman at the end.  Like the Burton-to-Schumacher transition or the Bond films, they could've used the Nolan films as a vague history, built off of an established Batman with established villains, and developed things from there in the next series of movies.  You could bring back Scarecrow with the understanding that he and Batman fought before. 

They could still do this for the reboot, I just think it'd have been an easier sell if The Dark Knight Rises wasn't about the end of his career.

I see your point but what TDKRises allows is a clean (if not page one) reboot. The Nolan canon is closed now. So anything that comes next will be separate from it, both by design and by necessity. Had TDKRises taken place a year'ish after TDK and ended with Bruce sticking around as Batman, whatever comes next could maybe kinda sorta halfway a little be tied in to the Nolanverse. Given my distaste for the Nolanverse, that suits my agenda not at all. But now there's really no choice but a reboot since I don't think anybody except the Chris Nolan true believers (and only some of them) care to see the adventures of John Blake.

^ That's very true and honestly, I hope for a clean slate, too.

I guess, in general, I'd like to avoid another origin reboot, like they just did with Spider-Man and soon, Superman.  Batman Begins isn't perfect, but I don't have much desire to see the origin redone and I feel like audiences are feeling origin-story-fatigue at this point. 

Ending the Nolan series with Bruce still as Batman would've increased the chances of the next movie avoiding the origin retelling in my book (though to be fair, Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns didn't feature the end of either superhero and they still got their origins redone), but as you said, the ending does give us more of a clean slate that could be more beneficial anyway.

Yep. I understand and I even agree but I think we don't have anything to worry about. Spider-Man and Superman are special cases. Spider-Man 3 wasn't that long ago. Redoing the origin was a statement that Webb wasn't following the Raimi canon without having to put up a title card saying "we're not following the Raimi canon".

With Superman, people have this strange perception that the origin story has been done to death but it really hasn't. The last time wide audiences saw Superman's origin was 1978. L&C, STAS, Smallville and anything else didn't have the widespread audiences that STM did. It makes sense to give modern audiences a Superman origin as an anchor point for whatever comes next.

Batman? He doesn't have that problem. Wide audiences saw the Nolan Batman's story begin in 2005 and end in 2012. They don't need a new origin to know that the reboot is a reboot. Simply showing a 20-something Bruce Wayne wearing a Batman uniform that looks nothing at all like Nolan's outfit is all most people will need. I doubt WB will bother redoing the origin. There's just no percentage in it.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 19 Aug  2012, 20:30
I see your point but what TDKRises allows is a clean (if not page one) reboot. The Nolan canon is closed now. So anything that comes next will be separate from it, both by design and by necessity. Had TDKRises taken place a year'ish after TDK and ended with Bruce sticking around as Batman, whatever comes next could maybe kinda sorta halfway a little be tied in to the Nolanverse. Given my distaste for the Nolanverse, that suits my agenda not at all. But now there's really no choice but a reboot since I don't think anybody except the Chris Nolan true believers (and only some of them) care to see the adventures of John Blake.

Agreed. The Nolanverse having an end is the best way to seal it off and have it be its own thing. For Nolan Batman fans, even though they're not going to see this world expanded, the integrity of that universe is protected. And for a reboot universe, it's clean and clear.

Quote^Agreed.

And I know that Nolan had the right to end The Dark Knight Rises however the heck he wanted to, but I wish it hadn't been an "End of Batman" movie.

Part of that is because I found all of those elements to be sloppily handled in the film.  But another part of it is because it would've been easier for the franchise's future if Bruce had stayed as Batman at the end.  Like the Burton-to-Schumacher transition or the Bond films, they could've used the Nolan films as a vague history, built off of an established Batman with established villains, and developed things from there in the next series of movies.  You could bring back Scarecrow with the understanding that he and Batman fought before.

They could still do this for the reboot, I just think it'd have been an easier sell if The Dark Knight Rises wasn't about the end of his career.

Agreed.  Ah, what's done is done.

For the next series, I'd like a few things.

First: Batman in his third year.  He's met the villains.  He's met the cops.  The world is established.  And in this world, we're allowed to have (to use Dennis O'Neil's words) magic realism.  If Ra's is in the film, so is the Lazarus Pit.  Mr. Freeze exists in it.  So does Clayface, Man-Bat, and villains who seem to come out of nowhere.

I would like the story to be a Hush-esque mystery (or perhaps Prey, I don't mean a direct reference to Hush per se) where there are multiple villains running around. I'd like it to be a mystery.  Something strange happens.  Police are baffled.  Batman called in.  Lots of crime scene analysis and work at the Bat-cave.

Finally: Dick Grayson. I'd like the next story to be the story of Batman: Mentor.  We have seen so many aspects of Batman brought to the silver screen in a satisfying way, but we haven not yet really seen Batman: Mentor.  Dick Grayson was given some advice in Batman Forever, and his costume was created off-screen.  It was a bit rushed for the third act. 

I've never heard of John Blake.  Telling a man that he needs a mask and showing him the bat cave does not give him the lifetime of training Batman supposedly had.  I need to see some detail here.  Bring the character to the screen--play him straight.  As much as I love some of the 60s series, it took years for an audience to recognize Batman as a dark and serious character.  Robin is *still* not there yet.  Time to bring him there.  :)

The only issue I see with an 11 or 12 yr old Robin is basically child endangerment. It plays in the comics but bringing a kid into those kinds of dangerous situations... not that I don't like the tone and nature of comics, I do, but I haven't figured out a way to do a young Robin without making Batman look completely reckless and irresponsible.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 26 Aug  2012, 23:31
The only issue I see with an 11 or 12 yr old Robin is basically child endangerment. It plays in the comics but bringing a kid into those kinds of dangerous situations... not that I don't like the tone and nature of comics, I do, but I haven't figured out a way to do a young Robin without making Batman look completely reckless and irresponsible.

Chris O' Donnell was 25 when he first played robin though. His character was supposed to be around 18 (Bruce makes allusions to him going to college in Forever and had Triumphant happened, he would have gone away) Burt Ward gets his drivers license during the Adam West series so presumably his Robin was supposed to be around 16. I agree not to have a 12 year old actor play him. Robin does ride a motor cycle around normally so if he's going to do that he should at least be legal driving age. But he needs to be below 18 for Bruce to take him in, one is generally not considered an orphan or helped by child services if they are legally an adult. Also I want someone who can actually ACT to play him. Not to say kids can't but it's a difficult transition from child to adult acting so it would be better not to have a repeat of the last two actors to play Dick Grayson where they never get a big role again after that. And perhaps the reason there's so much reluctance towards the character of Robin is that Ward and O' Donnell were both acting poorly and annoying near the end.

QuoteThe only issue I see with an 11 or 12 yr old Robin is basically child endangerment. It plays in the comics but bringing a kid into those kinds of dangerous situations... not that I don't like the tone and nature of comics, I do, but I haven't figured out a way to do a young Robin without making Batman look completely reckless and irresponsible.

I actually think this is a fair point.  One way to work around it is to introduce Dick Grayson as a 13 year old in the first film, but not really see him suit up as Robin.  Something along the lines of DV meets the Animated Series.  Either Robin's Reckoning (flashback scenes) or when they introduced Drake (I can't think of the title at the moment). 

Then have the next film take place a few years later with a Robin who is young, but not a child. 

I'd rather have a live-action Batman TV show than another movie. But if it has to continue as a film series, I say start off with Batman already established and depict the narrative from the perspective of Dick Grayson.

The plot should:

•   establish a more fantasy-oriented version of Gotham (ideally like the one in the 1989 film)
•   introduce Robin as a compelling and believable character
•   incorporate lesser known characters from the comics who've yet to appear on film
•   keep Batman as the central lynchpin of events, even when he's not onscreen
•   include plenty of detective work to balance out the action
•   bring it closer to the feel and tone of the comics
•   make the audience believe that any villain – regardless of how fantastic they are – could appear at any second
•   restore the mystique of the Batman character

For Robin's origin story, I would suggest amalgamating elements from Dick Grayson's origin (Dark Victory is probably the best template), the Pre-Crisis Jason Todd's origin (specifically Killer Croc's involvement with the death of his parents), and the recent Night of the Owls story arc (the connection between Haly's Circus and the Court of Owls would make a good entry point for the supernatural elements of the Batman mythos). I'd also include flashbacks to the Victorian era where we'd get to see Alan Wayne, Mayor Theodore Cobblepot, Edward Elliot and the establishment of Haley's Circus as a recruiting ground for the Court of Owls. I'd have Detective Bullock as the cop investigating the Grayson murders, and Dr. Leslie Thompkins as the social worker monitoring Dick Grayson's progress at Wayne Manor. For a love interest, I'd use Silver St Cloud.

As far as casting goes – well, I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again now – Jim Caviezel should be the next Batman. He's physically perfect for the part: 6'2, with black hair, blue eyes and chiselled jaw line – exactly like the Bruce Wayne in the comics. I was going to say he should bulk up a bit, but I saw a recent interview with him where he mentioned his weight was 210lbs, which is exactly the same weight as the Bruce Wayne in the comics. He fits the role 100%.


Add to this his athletic background – former college basketball player, trained extensively in martial arts when he was growing up, and recently trained with Special Forces units for his role on Person of Interest. He can also do a low menacing voice without sounding silly. And to top it all off, he's a damn good actor. I also like the fact he has distinctive parenthesis lines around his mouth like Keaton, which is how many artists draw Batman's lower face in the comics. He'd be in his mid forties by time filming commenced. But that wouldn't be a problem if they went with the Robin-origin angle.

And he should wear a costume similar to the one from the Arkham games. Armoured, but with the classic colour scheme from the comics. Kind of like this:


As far as the title goes, I'd call the movie Batman and Robin. It's simple, it's iconic and it would expunge the memory of the 1997 film.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Do you think a Batman live action tv show would work? It wouldn't have the budget of the movies.

The Jason Todd thing intrigues me. I was driving around last night and for some reason the thought occurred to me that you could combine both of Jason Todd's origins into a way that fits poignantly with Dick's. With Dick, Bruce was there on the scene and helped out right away. Jason could thus be a darker mirror of that. He and his parents? Also acrobats and also murdered. But unlike Dick, Bruce wasn't there to help. So Jason was put into foster care and later ran away from those homes and lived on the streets. This approach would show that he's basically what Dick could have been but for Bruce's intervention. It validates Jason's entire history as far as origins go.

From there, Jason could either become Robin or he could go directly to becoming a villain; I care not which.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 28 Aug  2012, 22:54
The plot should:

•   establish a more fantasy-oriented version of Gotham (ideally like the one in the 1989 film)
•   introduce Robin as a compelling and believable character
•   incorporate lesser known characters from the comics who've yet to appear on film
•   keep Batman as the central lynchpin of events, even when he's not onscreen
•   include plenty of detective work to balance out the action
•   bring it closer to the feel and tone of the comics
•   make the audience believe that any villain – regardless of how fantastic they are – could appear at any second
•   restore the mystique of the Batman character

I'm down with all of this.

QuoteDo you think a Batman live action tv show would work? It wouldn't have the budget of the movies.

The budget could be problematic. Especially if it was on a network like the CW. But I reckon it could be done, provided the right people were in control. And the episodic structure of a TV show would be perfect for adapting the numerous storylines from the comics. Villains that would never appear in a movie could have entire episodes devoted to them. And recurring characters could be steadily developed over multiple seasons. The Flash, Lois and Clark and Batman: TAS are the templates I'd use for a live-action Batman show.

QuoteThe Jason Todd thing intrigues me. I was driving around last night and for some reason the thought occurred to me that you could combine both of Jason Todd's origins into a way that fits poignantly with Dick's. With Dick, Bruce was there on the scene and helped out right away. Jason could thus be a darker mirror of that. He and his parents? Also acrobats and also murdered. But unlike Dick, Bruce wasn't there to help. So Jason was put into foster care and later ran away from those homes and lived on the streets. This approach would show that he's basically what Dick could have been but for Bruce's intervention. It validates Jason's entire history as far as origins go.

From there, Jason could either become Robin or he could go directly to becoming a villain; I care not which.

That's precisely the kind of dynamic I'd like to see, colors. If they were to amalgamate Dick Grayson and Jason Todd, then even the diehard comic fans wouldn't know how he was going to turn out. He could become Nightwing, he could become Red Hood. It would add an extra layer of ambiguity and tension to his character arc.

If I was writing it, I'd have the plot revolve around the Court of Owls trying to get hold of Dick Grayson so they can train him as their new head Talon. When his parents refuse to hand him over, the Court commissions a local mob boss, Tony Zucco, to have them killed. Zucco hires another member of Haly's Circus, a freak show act named Waylon Zones, to actually do the deed. Bruce Wayne then takes the surviving Grayson child under his wing in an effort to protect him from the Court. At first Bruce doesn't want to take on a partner, but gradually he realises the best way to protect the child is to train him to defend himself.

I'd reimagine Haly's Circus as a Caligaristic Victorian carnival show harbouring dark and sinister secrets. I'd probably change the name from Haly's Circus to Haly's Carnival to lend it a little extra ambiguity.

I'd also have Victor Fries as an employee of Wayne Enterprises. It would be from him that Batman acquires the cryogenics weapons he needs to incapacitate the invincible Talons. Towards the end of the film, the Talons would retaliate by attacking Fries' lab, inadvertently prompting his transformation into Mr. Freeze. Then he could return as a villain in one of the sequels.

And one final thing – I'd have the movie take place at Halloween. I think Batman 89 and Batman Forever were both supposed to take place around that time of year. But I'd make the Halloween setting a much more prominent aspect of the story, thereby imbuing the film with the same spooky autumnal ambiance as movies like Sleepy Hollow (1999) and Trick r Treat (2007).

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Wed, 29 Aug  2012, 17:31That's precisely the kind of dynamic I'd like to see, colors. If they were to amalgamate Dick Grayson and Jason Todd, then even the diehard comic fans wouldn't know how he was going to turn out. He could become Nightwing, he could become Red Hood. It would add an extra layer of ambiguity and tension to his character arc.

Good ideas but I think you're misinterpreting my concept. Dick's origin would be more or less as we know it. I'd simply use both origins for Jason. In the Pre-Crisis era, it was the acrobat thing. Post-Crisis, he was a street kid. So why not give Jason both of his origin stories? Set him up as an orphaned circus performer living on the streets. This would have no effect on Dick's traditional circus origin.

Ah, I see what you mean. There's a lot to be said for that idea. They never really accounted for Jason's physical prowess in the Post-Crisis stories. He was just a street punk who was somehow amazing at fighting. But if he'd trained as a circus performer before taking to the streets, like his Pre-Crisis counterpart, then that would give his skills a bit more credibility.

I had an idea that Jason could actually be the first Robin. It would be a mystery what had happened to him. Only Batman and Alfred would know his true fate, while everyone else would assume he was dead. Bruce's reluctance to train Dick Grayson would be similar to Yoda's reluctance to train Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back; he's already seen one apprentice fall and he doesn't want it to happen again.

The Red Hood could show up in one of the sequels and Batman would insist on fighting him alone. Dick would then uncover the truth about his predecessor – that  Jason Todd is the Red Hood, the original Robin. It would also make the Joker more intimidating if he'd already "killed" one Robin before even appearing on screen.

QuoteDick's origin would be more or less as we know it. I'd simply use both origins for Jason. In the Pre-Crisis era, it was the acrobat thing. Post-Crisis, he was a street kid. So why not give Jason both of his origin stories? Set him up as an orphaned circus performer living on the streets. This would have no effect on Dick's traditional circus origin.

My main issue with that, and it's an issue with Jason's Pre-Crisis origin as well, is that it seems almost too neat to have yet another orphaned acrobat.  I really like the parallel, though.

QuoteThe plot should:

•   establish a more fantasy-oriented version of Gotham (ideally like the one in the 1989 film)
•   introduce Robin as a compelling and believable character
•   incorporate lesser known characters from the comics who've yet to appear on film
•   keep Batman as the central lynchpin of events, even when he's not onscreen
•   include plenty of detective work to balance out the action
•   bring it closer to the feel and tone of the comics
•   make the audience believe that any villain – regardless of how fantastic they are – could appear at any second
•   restore the mystique of the Batman character

Like Dark Knight, I'm on board with this as well.

QuoteIf I was writing it, I'd have the plot revolve around the Court of Owls trying to get hold of Dick Grayson so they can train him as their new head Talon. When his parents refuse to hand him over, the Court commissions a local mob boss, Tony Zucco, to have them killed.

This really makes me want to read The Court of Owls story.  I've only heard vague points (and the whole Lincoln March twist), but it seems like the latest Batman story that people enjoyed.

QuoteZucco hires another member of Haly's Circus, a freak show act named Waylon Zones, to actually do the deed.

I really think Killer Croc is a natural character to include with Haly's Circus and a Robin origin movie.  My ideas are quite different, though.  While I know Killer Croc killed the Todds in the Pre-Crisis origin of Jason Todd's Robin and it'd make sense to combine that into Grayson's origin, I actually would take a little more inspiration from the Elseworlds Batman: Nine Lives, in which Grayson knew Croc from the circus and they were friends. 

I'd have it so that Waylon Jones/Croc was part of the circus because it was the only place that accepted him.  He became friends with the Graysons.  He looked out for their son.  Then Zucco's gang killed the Graysons (like in the comics and Dark Victory).  Croc mourns his best friends and his sadness turns to anger.  He wants revenge for the attack on the people he considers to be family.  He's sick of the outside world preying on them for being "freaks" and decides it's time to protect the rest of his circus family and make sure this never happens again.  He gathers other members of the circus as muscle to retaliate against Zucco and his kind.  But of course, his good intentions get warped along the way and, well, let's just say Waylon Jones/Croc becomes Killer Croc.

I'm attached to this version for several reasons.  This would give Croc an arc that stays true to his character (in never feeling truly accepted anywhere) yet gives him more dimension than the usual interpretation (i.e. Hush, Arkham). 
It'd bring Croc back to his roots of being a Gotham crime boss, but with better motivation and a more organic way of giving him a criminal organization and people to lead. 
It'd continue the plot development of the "freaks" taking over Gotham from the regular mob bosses (that was only barely explored in the Nolan trilogy).
It'd provide an interesting thematic contrast to Dick Grayson's character journey in how they both react to the Graysons' deaths differently. 
And, of course, it'd give more of an emotional connection between Robin and Killer Croc when, inevitably, these two have to fight each other.  To Batman, this is a new, dangerous freak-like criminal named "Killer Croc."  But to Robin, he will always be "Mr. Jones."

QuoteBruce Wayne then takes the surviving Grayson child under his wing in an effort to protect him from the Court. At first Bruce doesn't want to take on a partner, but gradually he realises the best way to protect the child is to train him to defend himself.

I love the idea of Bruce adopting Grayson at first as a means of protecting him.

QuoteI'd reimagine Haly's Circus as a Caligaristic Victorian carnival show harbouring dark and sinister secrets. I'd probably change the name from Haly's Circus to Haly's Carnival to lend it a little extra ambiguity.

As I expressed with the Croc idea, I'd love to explore Haly's more, mainly because this is where Dick grew up.  He didn't just have his parents.  I know the characters come up in Nightwing: Year One and I think Kyle Higgins brought them back in his Nightwing comics in the New 52.  Are there any other comics that explore Haly's?

QuoteI'd also have Victor Fries as an employee of Wayne Enterprises. It would be from him that Batman acquires the cryogenics weapons he needs to incapacitate the invincible Talons. Towards the end of the film, the Talons would retaliate by attacking Fries' lab, inadvertently prompting his transformation into Mr. Freeze. Then he could return as a villain in one of the sequels.

While I do miss the Nora Fries element in this scenario, I think it'd be kinda cool to set up a "Nolan-Freeman-Lucius Fox" type character, but then turn him into a villain for the franchise.

Your take on Killer Croc sounds a lot more layered than mine. I was basically going to have him play a small but significant role in the first half of the film, sort of like Joe Chill's role in Batman Begins. But your version sounds a lot more interesting and sympathetic.

I don't want to play the 'realism' card, but I generally prefer the more grounded depiction of Killer Croc as opposed to the Lizard-clone he's become in some of the more recent comics. So this is one character I might actually Nolanise.

QuoteAre there any other comics that explore Haly's?

There were loads of Pre-Crisis Robin stories featuring Haly's Circus. But the best recent story would be Night of the Owls. I don't want to say too much in case I spoil the plot for you. But suffice it to say it explores the historical background of the circus, as well as the history of the Grayson bloodline. It's well worth a read.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 28 Aug  2012, 22:54

As far as casting goes – well, I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again now – Jim Caviezel should be the next Batman. He's physically perfect for the part: 6'2, with black hair, blue eyes and chiselled jaw line – exactly like the Bruce Wayne in the comics. I was going to say he should bulk up a bit, but I saw a recent interview with him where he mentioned his weight was 210lbs, which is exactly the same weight as the Bruce Wayne in the comics. He fits the role 100%.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2FCaviezel.jpg&hash=f69b8cc409b4cccccea16690d59fa4ec93529b88)

Add to this his athletic background – former college basketball player, trained extensively in martial arts when he was growing up, and recently trained with Special Forces units for his role on Person of Interest. He can also do a low menacing voice without sounding silly. And to top it all off, he's a damn good actor. I also like the fact he has distinctive parenthesis lines around his mouth like Keaton, which is how many artists draw Batman's lower face in the comics. He'd be in his mid forties by time filming commenced. But that wouldn't be a problem if they went with the Robin-origin angle.

And he should wear a costume similar to the one from the Arkham games. Armoured, but with the classic colour scheme from the comics. Kind of like this:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2FBatsuit-1.jpg&hash=caa5210ae170b831032211e9835382aaa827556c)

As far as the title goes, I'd call the movie Batman and Robin. It's simple, it's iconic and it would expunge the memory of the 1997 film.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the matter.

Genius. I'll add something to that; what's the biggest complaint about Bale as Batman? Easily his annoying bat voice. Well Caviezel has used quite a few different types of voices on screen and I'm not talking about different accents either. Watch person of interest, deja vu, and frequency. He does seem to have 1 voice reserved for villain roles. So he could easily handle the voice masking criteria without sounding silly or annoying the way Bale does.

QuoteGenius. I'll add something to that; what's the biggest complaint about Bale as Batman? Easily his annoying bat voice. Well Caviezel has used quite a few different types of voices on screen and I'm not talking about different accents either. Watch person of interest, deja vu, and frequency. He does seem to have 1 voice reserved for villain roles. So he could easily handle the voice masking criteria without sounding silly or annoying the way Bale does.

My thoughts exactly. The key to doing an intimidating voice is to make it sound like it's your natural voice. As soon as it becomes obvious it's an affectation, it starts to sound silly.

I'd also cite Caviezel's performance in The Count of Monte Cristo (2002) as evidence of his suitability, as in that film he portrays a playboy/dual persona character very effectively. He's also physically larger than any of the previous Batman actors, and unlike his predecessors he'd have some legitimate martial arts training to showcase in the fight scenes.

Honestly, I think if anyone could be the definitive live-action Batman, it's this guy. I'll be disappointed if Warner Bros casts anyone else in the role, which they almost certainly will. Fortunately I've seen a few people on other sites putting his name forward for the role, so maybe Warner Bros will hear us and take note.

Honestly, I think the guy's opportunity is long gone. He's 43 right now. Best case scenario, we get a Batman reboot in 2015, by which time he'll be 46.

I don't question the guy's talent or (once upon a time) suitability but we should probably be realistic here.

Indeed.  As much as I'd love to see Caviezel (and I agree completely about the voice), as well as another fan favorite Jon Hamm, in the role, I have my doubts we'll see anyone over 40 in the cape and cowl by the time they get this rolling.

QuoteI had an idea that Jason could actually be the first Robin. It would be a mystery what had happened to him. Only Batman and Alfred would know his true fate, while everyone else would assume he was dead. Bruce's reluctance to train Dick Grayson would be similar to Yoda's reluctance to train Luke Skywalker in The Empire Strikes Back; he's already seen one apprentice fall and he doesn't want it to happen again.

The Red Hood could show up in one of the sequels and Batman would insist on fighting him alone. Dick would then uncover the truth about his predecessor – that  Jason Todd is the Red Hood, the original Robin. It would also make the Joker more intimidating if he'd already "killed" one Robin before even appearing on screen.

I find this idea very intriguing, but I'm a bit wary of Jason being the one first connected to the Robin name and outfit.  I feel that the name and persona would come from Dick and that Jason would've come up with a different name and attitude if he had been Batman's first partner.

QuoteYour take on Killer Croc sounds a lot more layered than mine. I was basically going to have him play a small but significant role in the first half of the film, sort of like Joe Chill's role in Batman Begins. But your version sounds a lot more interesting and sympathetic.

I don't want to play the 'realism' card, but I generally prefer the more grounded depiction of Killer Croc as opposed to the Lizard-clone he's become in some of the more recent comics. So this is one character I might actually Nolanise.

Thanks. 

And I agree about a more grounded depiction simply because when Croc was first introduced, he was a man born with a skin condition.  On film, he should look that way.  I'm actually glad The Amazing Spider-Man did The Lizard already since, if Croc were to ever make it on film, I'd think they'd try to make him look more human to avoid comparisons.

I think Killer Croc should, despite his skin condition, still look very much human.  The version in Azzarello and Bermejo's Joker looks a little too normal for my taste, but something along these lines (Croc's earlier appearances) would be best:
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/158451-46215-killer-croc.JPG

QuoteHonestly, I think the guy's opportunity is long gone. He's 43 right now. Best case scenario, we get a Batman reboot in 2015, by which time he'll be 46.

I don't question the guy's talent or (once upon a time) suitability but we should probably be realistic here.

I don't for a second believe they really will cast someone like Caviezel or Hamm. Nor do I think they'll use the grey and blue costume from the comics or adapt villains exclusive to the New 52 canon. These are just things I'd like to see in the next film. My dream Batman project, if you will.

It seems to me that most fans are satisfied with Nolan's take on the Batman universe and don't want to see a reboot at all. I reckon casting an actor in his forties might help take the sting out of the idea. It would make the new films feel less like a retread of what Nolan's just done and more like a progression of sorts; quasi-sequels that show what might have happened if Bruce hadn't retired at the end of TDKR.

Prior to Flashpoint, the Batman in the comics was aged around his late forties/early fifties and yet was still considered to be in his prime. The Millerverse/Earth-31 Batman was in his mid to late forties when Robin was killed. The original Golden Age Batman was 61 when he burnt his costume and formally retired as Batman. And even then, he still donned the cowl for one more battle when he was 64.

Batman doesn't need to be in his twenties or thirties. Not unless they're re-telling the origin story, which I'm hoping they'll avoid doing. It's different for Superman and Spider-Man, as Superman isn't meant to age like an ordinary human, and Spider-Man is meant to be a youth-oriented hero. But many of Batman's best stories take place when he's in his forties (including the majority of story arcs from the 1990s and 2000s). And if the best actors for the part happen to be in that age bracket, then I say go for it.

Let's not forget Michael Keaton was 38 when he shot the first film, yet he was meant to be playing a Batman who was just starting out. Had he starred in Batman Forever, he would have been around 43 or 44 at the time. Adam West was 50 when he played Batman in The Legends of the Superheroes miniseries. So I really don't think Caviezel is too old to play the part. He's also quite popular at the moment thanks to his work on Person of Interest and his upcoming role as the villain opposite Sly and Arnold in The Tomb (2013). Now would be the perfect time to cast him.

A lot of people want a film along the lines of The Dark Knight Returns focusing on the adventures of an older Batman. Some people want a retelling of the young Batman's early exploits. What I'm suggesting is something in between; a middle-aged Batman in his prime, and a youthful Robin just starting out. That's something we haven't seen in a film before. And I think it would be a refreshing approach to the mythos. I understand your point about Warner Bros almost certainly casting someone young in the role. But I believe, from a creative standpoint, it would be more interesting to try something a little more left field.

QuoteI find this idea very intriguing, but I'm a bit wary of Jason being the one first connected to the Robin name and outfit.  I feel that the name and persona would come from Dick and that Jason would've come up with a different name and attitude if he had been Batman's first partner.

I see what you mean. My idea is that the first Robin has become something of an urban legend, a myth that no one is sure ever really existed. It would be a rumour circulating amongst the criminal element – a legend that Batman once had a costumed ally who dressed in red and black. There'd be graffiti on alleyway walls throughout the city depicting a boy dressed in these colours, with the fresh red paint running down the brickwork like trickling blood. Batman would react nervously whenever he sees these images, as though haunted by a traumatic memory from his past. Dick would ask Alfred if the rumour of Robin's existence has any truth to it, and Alfred would caution him against inquiring about the subject further.

Towards the end of the film, the security of Wayne Manor would be compromised and Bruce would order Alfred and Dick to hole up in the Batcave while he goes for a showdown with the Court's Talons. In his absence, Dick would wander through the cave and stumble across the display cabinet containing the bloodstained costume of the first Robin. Without asking for Alfred's permission, he'd don the suit and sneak away to help Batman in the final fight (similar to how the Post-Crisis Jason stole Dick's old costume, or how Damien Wayne used elements from Jason's suit as the basis for his own). Batman would initially be horrified when he sees the boy wearing the suit, but he'd gradually come to terms with Dick's vocation as a crime fighter (similar to his acceptance of Tim Drake in A Lonely Place of Dying). Dick would get his own costume at the end of the movie featuring the traditional red, green and yellow colour scheme from the comics.

I thought perhaps Jason's Robin could actually be referred to as 'Red Robin' to distinguish his costumed persona from Dick's. That way the colour red could be a visual motif symbolising Bruce's guilt over what happened to Jason (the red of Jason's costume, the red of the blood, the paint, etc). The red motif would come back to haunt him when Red Hood shows up in one of the sequels. It would also connect Jason's two costumed identities: Red Robin and Red Hood. By contrast, I'd have Dick's costume as the classic red, yellow and green Robin suit.

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head, so they aren't terribly well developed or anything. I'm just rambling.

QuoteI think Killer Croc should, despite his skin condition, still look very much human.  The version in Azzarello and Bermejo's Joker looks a little too normal for my taste, but something along these lines (Croc's earlier appearances) would be best:
http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/77/158451-46215-killer-croc.JPG

Yeah, I wasn't keen on Azzarello and Bermejo's Killer Croc. Or anything else from that book, for that matter. I think Conway and Colan's original take on the character is still the best. And that's the version I'd like to see serve as the basis for the live-action incarnation.

QuotePrior to Flashpoint, the Batman in the comics was aged around his late forties/early fifties and yet was still considered to be in his prime. The Millerverse/Earth-31 Batman was in his mid to late forties when Robin was killed. The original Golden Age Batman was 61 when he burnt his costume and formally retired as Batman. And even then, he still donned the cowl for one more battle when he was 64.

Batman doesn't need to be in his twenties or thirties. Not unless they're re-telling the origin story, which I'm hoping they'll avoid doing. It's different for Superman and Spider-Man, as Superman isn't meant to age like an ordinary human, and Spider-Man is meant to be a youth-oriented hero. But many of Batman's best stories take place when he's in his forties (including the majority of story arcs from the 1990s and 2000s). And if the best actors for the part happen to be in that age bracket, then I say go for it.

Let's not forget Michael Keaton was 38 when he shot the first film, yet he was meant to be playing a Batman who was just starting out. Had he starred in Batman Forever, he would have been around 43 or 44 at the time. Adam West was 50 when he played Batman in The Legends of the Superheroes miniseries. So I really don't think Caviezel is too old to play the part. He's also quite popular at the moment thanks to his work on Person of Interest and his upcoming role as the villain opposite Sly and Arnold in The Tomb (2013). Now would be the perfect time to cast him.

A lot of people want a film along the lines of The Dark Knight Returns focusing on the adventures of an older Batman. Some people want a retelling of the young Batman's early exploits. What I'm suggesting is something in between; a middle-aged Batman in his prime, and a youthful Robin just starting out. That's something we haven't seen in a film before. And I think it would be a refreshing approach to the mythos. I understand your point about Warner Bros almost certainly casting someone young in the role. But I believe, from a creative standpoint, it would be more interesting to try something a little more left field.

These are all great points and I'd certainly like to see it happen.  Plus, I think an older Batman actor makes more sense for a Robin origin film than an actor in his late 20s/early 30s.

QuoteI thought perhaps Jason's Robin could actually be referred to as 'Red Robin' to distinguish his costumed persona from Dick's. That way the colour red could be a visual motif symbolising Bruce's guilt over what happened to Jason (the red of Jason's costume, the red of the blood, the paint, etc). The red motif would come back to haunt him when Red Hood shows up in one of the sequels. It would also connect Jason's two costumed identities: Red Robin and Red Hood. By contrast, I'd have Dick's costume as the classic red, yellow and green Robin suit.

This crossed my mind, too.  And while Tim Drake is the one associated with Red Robin at the moment, Jason actually wore the suit before him in Countdown to Final Crisis, so this would just be a tie back to that.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Red Robin outfit in live action, actually (The original one, not the New 52 one that Drake wears now).  One thing that it has over the traditional Robin suit is, well, head protection.  I'd imagine Bruce would want his young partner to be even more protected than he is, when it comes to these costumes.  I also kinda like how the RR cowl resembles a bird's head just like Batman's cowl resembles a bat's.  You could even make the nose protrude a tiny bit more, to give a beak-like appearance and give him a notable silhouette.

Still, it might be too much of a far cry from the original Robin imagery to be used as Robin's actual live action suit.  But, at the risk of sounding like I'm "Nolanizing" the character, if we were to go with the more traditional Robin suit (i.e. Dick wearing the 90s Tim Drake suit), how would you explain Batman allowing this kid to combat criminals with only a domino mask?

definitely if they go with Robin they should go with Dick Grayson or Jason todd. Dick could lead to nightwing while Jason eventually the red hood.

QuoteAnd while Tim Drake is the one associated with Red Robin at the moment, Jason actually wore the suit before him in Countdown to Final Crisis, so this would just be a tie back to that.

Good point. And Dick Grayson wore the costume before either of them in Kingdom Come (1996), though I guess that doesn't count since it's not part of the main canon. Of all the Robin costumes, the Red Robin outfit is probably the one that would work best in live action. It's got a darker colour scheme than the other suits and is closer in overall design to Batman's outfit. And as you say, the cowl offers more protection than the domino mask, so it makes more sense from a practical perspective.

Even so, I still like the classic Dick Grayson Robin suit best.


Yes, it's ridiculous. But it's iconic. And I'd like to see it appear in the next live-action movie or TV show, even if it's just for the Flying Graysons circus scenes.

More than anything though, I want the next movie to include some version of the classic Batman suit from the comics. I'd prefer it to be blue and grey, but I'll be happy with black and grey. Just as long as it's not all black. The all black suit was fine to begin with, but we've seen it in seven movies now. I think an appearance from the classic suit is long overdue.

Indeed.  The reason why I'm hesitant to outright say "Robin's suit should be the Red Robin outfit onscreen" is because I'd like the next film to stick to the iconic comic book looks for once, in the vein of how Iron Man and Raimi's Spider-Man looked like the comic book heroes brought to life.  Seeing Batman and Red Robin onscreen, while cool, just wouldn't feel as iconic as seeing Batman and Robin.

To me, what's tricky about Robin's outfit isn't so much how people find it ridiculous.  It's the Batman factor.  It's reasoning why Bruce would let a boy fight crime with him in a suit that is, let's face it, incredibly dangerous.  The bright colors make him a moving target.  He has no head protection (or leg protection if we go with the classic 1940s suit).  His mask can barely conceal his identity.  It's not a question of realism, so much as questioning why Bruce would take the risk in letting a teenager fight armed criminals this way.  Using the more modern suits, such as Tim Drake's 1990s one or even the black and red update, would help a bit, but there's still the head protection/mask factor that I feel would be an issue with Bruce.

I think the Red Robin suit is a nice compromise because it's still comic-faithful while more practical and seemingly more protective.  But again, I don't think it's as good as getting the actual Robin suit onscreen.  I'd like a writer/director who presents a version of Robin's suit that's faithful to the iconography and a script that tackles these issues and provides solid reasons for why Robin's outfit looks the way it does, rather than completely change the costume into something else just 'cause he/she doesn't think the comic book suit would work.

if the plan is another franchise; give a new director a series of films to work with, what are your thoughts on an adaptation of Year one?
It's a great read but I have mixed feelings on it. We've kind of scene elements of it play out. While not based on it, the first Burton film follows the same general formula; starting out with Bruce already batman but more or less rising from urban legend to public figure.
Begins lifts several elements including batman commanding bats, having Gordon's ascension in the ranks due to good work while his daughter is an infant and of course the final meeting on the headquarters and revealing the joker card.

I should get the cartoon version of it.

My problem with Year One (and arguably the animated movie bears this out) is that it's not paced or structured in a movie-friendly way. Love or hate Chris Nolan's Batman films but he obviously understood that and I suspect that's why he only borrowed elements or perhaps the tone of Year One rather than adapting it directly.

If Caviezel can't do Batman, then he should be the new Max Shreck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMvPyOCwEWw

Lol. That was great! He should use that voice as Batman.

"I want you to tell...awll of your friends...abaouwt me....I'm...the Batman!"

It'd be a brilliant way of throwing the cops off his trail. Gordon would end up arresting Walken on suspicion of being Batman and no one would suspect it was really Bruce Wayne. If nothing else, it would be an improvement on Bale's Dark Knight voice.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Tue, 28 Aug  2012, 22:54

As far as casting goes – well, I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again now – Jim Caviezel should be the next Batman. He's physically perfect for the part: 6'2, with black hair, blue eyes and chiselled jaw line – exactly like the Bruce Wayne in the comics. I was going to say he should bulk up a bit, but I saw a recent interview with him where he mentioned his weight was 210lbs, which is exactly the same weight as the Bruce Wayne in the comics. He fits the role 100%.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi396.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fpp42%2Fsilver-nemsis%2FCaviezel.jpg&hash=f69b8cc409b4cccccea16690d59fa4ec93529b88)

James Caviezel as Batman would be aces with me. The guy is a very capable actor that displays range in the type of characters he has played thru his acting career and his being announced as the next Batman would have me as interested as I was when Bale was first announced to be perfectly honest.

I was also a fan of the idea of Caviezel playing Superman shortly following Bryan Singer being reported as the director for the then-new Superman film back in 2004. Which gained some steam due to Caviezel publicly stating that he would be interested in the role, and also Mark Millar posting on his website that Caviezel had actually been cast (which turned out to be complete bunk). I remember being severely disappointed when BJ was officially announced, but given how that film turned out, Jim might have been thankful for being left out of that fray.

Unfortunately, with ageism being a bitch in Hollywood, I don't see the likelyhood of JC being cast as Batman for a rebooted franchise being that great, and that's our loss. Though with WB/DC possibly toying with the idea of a cinematic multiverse, maybe the idea isn't as far fetched as some would initially perceive (JC as Supes in a live action Dark Knight Returns perhaps?)...

*First Post*

As much as I'd love to see a sequel to Batman Returns it's not going to happen. Unfortunately nowadays the Burton movies are lumped in with the Schumacher movies so a lot of people think that they are part of the same universe as Burton's movies. Also too much time has gone by so Burton's Batman universe is sadly dead. We're all kidding ourselves if we think that WB is really going to get Burton back.

For a new Batman I want to see a reboot that's more like the comics without the over the top realism that Nolan was aiming for. These are comic book movies and comic books have larger then life characters.

Also a new Batman movie series should in my opinion skip the origin story. I don't know about everyone else but personally I'm sick and tired of origin stories.

Hi Vampfox, welcome to the site.

Agreed on the direction of the new movie.

A friend of mine floated a suggestion that the next Batman franchise be a sort of Brave & the Bold type of thing in live action. His point was that Nolan pretty much covered the uber-dark Batman for a while so why not make something for all ages audiences?

Whatever comes next should be completely different from Nolan... and, well, his suggestion is certainly different...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 19 Dec  2012, 19:40
A friend of mine floated a suggestion that the next Batman franchise be a sort of Brave & the Bold type of thing in live action. His point was that Nolan pretty much covered the uber-dark Batman for a while so why not make something for all ages audiences?

Whatever comes next should be completely different from Nolan... and, well, his suggestion is certainly different...

Definitely I'm all for having more fun than Nolan had. The problem is Brave and the Bold might get similar to  batman and Robin.

I don't think it has to equal The Brave and the Bold, but more fun is definitely needed. And I'm not talking about Nolan's exact tone with a few more one liners thrown in.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri,  4 Jan  2013, 22:06I don't think it has to equal The Brave and the Bold, but more fun is definitely needed. And I'm not talking about Nolan's exact tone with a few more one liners thrown in.

If it was along the lines of that The Batman series from about 2004 or 5, I'd be okay with that. That wasn't TBATB but it wasn't as gritty and depressing as Nolan's movies either. It'd be a good middleground for a reboot to tread.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun,  6 Jan  2013, 08:27
If it was along the lines of that The Batman series from about 2004 or 5, I'd be okay with that. That wasn't TBATB but it wasn't as gritty and depressing as Nolan's movies either. It'd be a good middleground for a reboot to tread.

That's the kind of thing I would be wanting. I firmly believe there has to be a degree of fun/charm to Batman - like the wonder of the Batmobile cruising back to the cave with Vicki in 89. There's a reason why Bruce dons the cowl - but he still has cool vehicles, gadgets, tons of money and a mansion. Maybe you don't necessarily want to be the guy as much as say Superman, but you get a kick out of seeing Batman being Batman. TDKR touched upon these things - driving the batpod into oncoming traffic and escaping in The Bat against the odds for example. But there wasn't enough of it. I wouldn't want Batman to become a generic superhero but  Schumacher's action sequences actually are more in line with what I'd like from a reboot. Like ejecting from a frozen batmobile in the air and gliding away after Freeze.

So by "fun" you all mean more fanciful sets, more screentime with Batman in suit, more exciting action, better fight sequences... not a lighter, goofier tone... We are in the same batskiboat.

(Sabretooth Joker from "The Batman" was a crime against good taste)

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  6 Jan  2013, 22:14So by "fun" you all mean more fanciful sets, more screentime with Batman in suit, more exciting action, better fight sequences... not a lighter, goofier tone... We are in the same batskiboat.

Sure. Nolan went to pains to avoid certain stuff that makes Batman cool so a reboot ought to bring those elements back in- a real Batmobile, an enormous Batcave, more bat-motif gadgets, etc.

But if they want to leave Robin out altogether, I will totally, absolutely, fully, unquestioningly and completely support their decision.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  6 Jan  2013, 22:14(Sabretooth Joker from "The Batman" was a crime against good taste)

Can't really argue that. I understand they didn't want to compete with Mark Hamill (and who can blame them?) but still... wow...

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  6 Jan  2013, 22:14
So by "fun" you all mean more fanciful sets, more screentime with Batman in suit, more exciting action, better fight sequences... not a lighter, goofier tone... We are in the same batskiboat.

Yes. The Arkhamverse is much in line with what I want in a reboot. I anticipated Arkham City more than TDKR. That series lets it all hang out - pretty much all of the villains appearing, Robin, Nightwing, Oracle etc but still remains very much about Batman doing cool stuff.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  7 Jan  2013, 07:16

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sun,  6 Jan  2013, 22:14
So by "fun" you all mean more fanciful sets, more screentime with Batman in suit, more exciting action, better fight sequences... not a lighter, goofier tone... We are in the same batskiboat.

Yes. The Arkhamverse is much in line with what I want in a reboot. I anticipated Arkham City more than TDKR. That series lets it all hang out - pretty much all of the villains appearing, Robin, Nightwing, Oracle etc but still remains very much about Batman doing cool stuff.

Agreed. As much as TDK is my favorite Batman film, It's time for a different tone. The Arkham games and Snyder's current run on the books are a perfect balance between serious and fun. It shouldn't be fun for batman, but it sure should be fun to watch Batman. And I really, really, really want Robin. As a teen. If this new series was a trilogy starting with Dick being taken in by Bruce and ending with him becoming Nightwing I would be a happy camper.

Why must there be a sequel to begin with? Why not wait a decade before doing another film? At this point, a film revolving around the Joker seems inevitable and why would you want to do it so soon after Ledger? Give it some time. The characters aren't going away any time soon.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Sun, 13 Jan  2013, 23:18
Why must there be a sequel to begin with? Why not wait a decade before doing another film? At this point, a film revolving around the Joker seems inevitable and why would you want to do it so soon after Ledger? Give it some time. The characters aren't going away any time soon.

Not to sound morbid but basically I could be dead in a decade lol Why would I wanna wait that long therefore for a new one? The future is too mysterious to map out accurately....

Quote from: Bobthegoon89 on Sun, 13 Jan  2013, 23:38

Not to sound morbid but basically I could be dead in a decade lol Why would I wanna wait that long therefore for a new one? The future is too mysterious to map out accurately....

Not to sound like a troll but why should a few fans dictate the fate of the franchise? The best part about the Nolan DKT was we had to wait several years for it. By the time Batman Begins emerged, the anticipation was fever pitch. I see the point that Batman could potentially become a series like James Bond (whereas you have several connected and unconnected storylines with the same or several different actors playing and/or reprising the same roles). It could work. I'm just not a fan of how all these modern superhero movies continually 'reboot' themselves after a few short years. I think it takes away from the acting performance put forth by the actor.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30Not to sound like a troll but why should a few fans dictate the fate of the franchise?

A question I often ask myself, actually, but for very different reasons.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30The best part about the Nolan DKT was we had to wait several years for it. By the time Batman Begins emerged, the anticipation was fever pitch.

No it wasn't. Not among the general public anyway. A lot of fans were majorly stoked for it but there was a lot of antipathy built up toward Batman because of the perceived lameness of the character. It's strange to imagine a world where Batman was considered corny and news of another Batman movie was at best greeted with ambivalence and at worst mockery but such a world existed less than ten years ago.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30I see the point that Batman could potentially become a series like James Bond (whereas you have several connected and unconnected storylines with the same or several different actors playing and/or reprising the same roles). It could work. I'm just not a fan of how all these modern superhero movies continually 'reboot' themselves after a few short years. I think it takes away from the acting performance put forth by the actor.

I understand. The Bond comparisons don't really take into account how limited any character's rogues gallery really is. Yes, even Batman's. Bond has the virtue (and the burden) of being able to create a new villain each time out. And if a villain is screwed up and the movie is a clunker, hey, try harder next time. If someone brings the Penguin to the big screen, that villain can't be used again any time soon even if it turns out well. How many heavy-hitters does Batman really have in his lineup? Sure, he's got some good ones but even the best ones are variations on Batman himself and I think audiences would get tired of seeing Batman constantly tackling essentially warped versions of himself. The villain saying "we're the same" bit is a cliche already. I truly believe if audiences were subjected to it enough, they'd pull their hair out. The "do Batman like Bond" crowd don't ever seem to take this stuff into account. I get it, they don't like reboots and they want the character to continually progress and evolve. But it's never been done and I think a big part of that could be the likelihood of almost endless repetition. And hell, Bond has made a cottage industry of repetition... until, that is, audiences got fed up and a reboot was inevitable.

My two cents.

Tim Burton's "The Dark Knight Returns" - starring Michael Keaton. With Billy Dee Williams, Michelle Pfeifer, and a cameo by Jack Nicholson (depending on whether or not Burton makes the Scarecrow a villan in the film).

Check out an older post of mine on why now is the perfect time to develop a direct sequel to Batman Returns here:
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=1953.0

Also... check out and like my FB page! :D http://www.facebook.com/pages/Batman-3-Tim-BurtonMichael-KeatonDanny-Elfman/289064001193311

Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 23 Jul  2012, 21:15
either a returns sequel (i'll write the script!!!) or a complete reboot without batsy's origin.

I'll help you develope the story if we could honestly find a way to get it to Burton!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 04:43

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30Not to sound like a troll but why should a few fans dictate the fate of the franchise?

A question I often ask myself, actually, but for very different reasons.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30The best part about the Nolan DKT was we had to wait several years for it. By the time Batman Begins emerged, the anticipation was fever pitch.

No it wasn't. Not among the general public anyway. A lot of fans were majorly stoked for it but there was a lot of antipathy built up toward Batman because of the perceived lameness of the character. It's strange to imagine a world where Batman was considered corny and news of another Batman movie was at best greeted with ambivalence and at worst mockery but such a world existed less than ten years ago.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Mon, 14 Jan  2013, 22:30I see the point that Batman could potentially become a series like James Bond (whereas you have several connected and unconnected storylines with the same or several different actors playing and/or reprising the same roles). It could work. I'm just not a fan of how all these modern superhero movies continually 'reboot' themselves after a few short years. I think it takes away from the acting performance put forth by the actor.

I understand. The Bond comparisons don't really take into account how limited any character's rogues gallery really is. Yes, even Batman's. Bond has the virtue (and the burden) of being able to create a new villain each time out. And if a villain is screwed up and the movie is a clunker, hey, try harder next time. If someone brings the Penguin to the big screen, that villain can't be used again any time soon even if it turns out well. How many heavy-hitters does Batman really have in his lineup? Sure, he's got some good ones but even the best ones are variations on Batman himself and I think audiences would get tired of seeing Batman constantly tackling essentially warped versions of himself. The villain saying "we're the same" bit is a cliche already. I truly believe if audiences were subjected to it enough, they'd pull their hair out. The "do Batman like Bond" crowd don't ever seem to take this stuff into account. I get it, they don't like reboots and they want the character to continually progress and evolve. But it's never been done and I think a big part of that could be the likelihood of almost endless repetition. And hell, Bond has made a cottage industry of repetition... until, that is, audiences got fed up and a reboot was inevitable.

My two cents.

Yes I too certainly remember the muted reaction at the start of 2005. This is how pathetic it was: comic fans and critics were banking on the long awaited Fantastic Four movie being the big hitter of that summer! LOL Whereas Batman Begins got a bit of a sceptical kicking in sci-fi publications with interviewers demanding to know what it might deliver rather than championing it. It was "the Marvel age of movies" back then. DC Characters ruling on the big screen was considered a thing of the past in the wake of X-Men and Spider-Man movies.

Matter of fact I remember a simple newspaper headline in 2002 which slightly annoyed me at the release of the original Spider-Man movie. It simply read: "Batman and Superman.....YOUR HISTORY!" lol

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 04:43
No it wasn't. Not among the general public anyway. A lot of fans were majorly stoked for it but there was a lot of antipathy built up toward Batman because of the perceived lameness of the character. It's strange to imagine a world where Batman was considered corny and news of another Batman movie was at best greeted with ambivalence and at worst mockery but such a world existed less than ten years ago.

It was among the Batman fans I know and I certainly was looking forward to the reboot after Schuemocker destroyed everything the 1980s reboot had accomplished. One look at the trailer for Batman Begins makes it clear this was not going to be another Batman & Robin. The Hollywood press may have had lukeworm feelings because the Marvel Universe had become popular but who really gives a flying f*** about them anyway?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 04:43
I understand. The Bond comparisons don't really take into account how limited any character's rogues gallery really is. Yes, even Batman's. Bond has the virtue (and the burden) of being able to create a new villain each time out. And if a villain is screwed up and the movie is a clunker, hey, try harder next time. If someone brings the Penguin to the big screen, that villain can't be used again any time soon even if it turns out well. How many heavy-hitters does Batman really have in his lineup? Sure, he's got some good ones but even the best ones are variations on Batman himself and I think audiences would get tired of seeing Batman constantly tackling essentially warped versions of himself. The villain saying "we're the same" bit is a cliche already. I truly believe if audiences were subjected to it enough, they'd pull their hair out. The "do Batman like Bond" crowd don't ever seem to take this stuff into account. I get it, they don't like reboots and they want the character to continually progress and evolve. But it's never been done and I think a big part of that could be the likelihood of almost endless repetition.

I disagree completely. The value of having a vast rogue's gallery is eliminating the problem of having to create a villain. The outline is already there for the character because they've been established. If the right people fill in the blanks accordingly with a good script, any villain can have it's day. The problem is screen writers only want to write for The Joker, Two-Face or the Riddler because everyone already knows who they are to some extent. The backstory is essentially established from the get go and you don't have to do any real writing. A good writer and talented actor will make any character their own. That's why Ledger's Joker will always be touted with praise. He played the part with such malice vigor yet added a touch of comedy when it was needed. Nobody expected him to top Jack Nicholson but he was brilliant and it made the movie a classic. The key to bringing these villains to life on screen may lay more in giving each individual their own film rather than bunching them together. I think it works against the characters and the actors playing them. Nolan's Two Face worked for the story he was telling but I would much rather see Harvey Dent slide down a dark path over the course of several films, having his transformation become a brutal spectacle of slow madness that eventually takes over an entire film on it's own. I liked how Cillian Murphy popped up randomly in the last three. Imagine multiple villains popping up randomly throughout a 3-5 film series where each one is given their proper screen time and story arch. It would be fascinating and could really transform the comic book film noir to a different level.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 04:43And hell, Bond has made a cottage industry of repetition... until, that is, audiences got fed up and a reboot was inevitable.

The Bond reboot happened because the series had become a technological farce that had little to do with the spy character Ian Fleming created. While I do agree it has worked (Casino Royale and Skyfall are two of the best of the entire series), the main ingredient to their success is more emphasis on having good scripts, less explosions and of course casting Daniel Craig as the seminole Bond of our era.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 21:39It was among the Batman fans I know

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 21:39The Hollywood press

I'm not talking about either of them. I was referring to the general moviegoing public. And they weren't necessarily enthused about BB.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 15 Jan  2013, 04:43I disagree completely. The value of having a vast rogue's gallery is eliminating the problem of having to create a villain.

And the problem there is that a great many Batman villains are a bit too similar to one another. How many times do you really think wide audiences are willing to sit through a villain who's either out for revenge, a mirror image of Batman or both?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 00:44
I'm not talking about either of them. I was referring to the general moviegoing public. And they weren't necessarily enthused about BB.

That comes down to promotion. And it also was likely do to an unfamiliar villain. It was also an origin story. Most people already know why Bruce Wayne is Batman: his parents were murdered. However, having the complete origin story involving the League of Shadows was necessary to establish a full backstory for Bruce Wayne that all future films (whether related to Christopher Nolan or not) could point to if they chose to.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 00:44
And the problem there is that a great many Batman villains are a bit too similar to one another. How many times do you really think wide audiences are willing to sit through a villain who's either out for revenge, a mirror image of Batman or both?

That's specifically why I suggested bringing in writers who want to challenge the characters and bring them to life in ways they haven't been able to be in the comics.

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 02:12That comes down to promotion. And it also was likely do to an unfamiliar villain. It was also an origin story. Most people already know why Bruce Wayne is Batman: his parents were murdered. However, having the complete origin story involving the League of Shadows was necessary to establish a full backstory for Bruce Wayne that all future films (whether related to Christopher Nolan or not) could point to if they chose to.

Okay, so you argument is that B&R had absolutely nothing to do with it?

Quote from: DarkestKnight on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 02:12That's specifically why I suggested bringing in writers who want to challenge the characters and bring them to life in ways they haven't been able to be in the comics.

If you're going to reinvent the character in the end anyway, why not simply create a brand new villain? Had Crane been replaced by an original character, I'd probably be willing to cut the Nolan movies a bit more slack in terms of the liberties they took not just with him but also with other characters.

QuoteNot to sound like a troll but why should a few fans dictate the fate of the franchise? The best part about the Nolan DKT was we had to wait several years for it. By the time Batman Begins emerged, the anticipation was fever pitch. I see the point that Batman could potentially become a series like James Bond (whereas you have several connected and unconnected storylines with the same or several different actors playing and/or reprising the same roles). It could work. I'm just not a fan of how all these modern superhero movies continually 'reboot' themselves after a few short years. I think it takes away from the acting performance put forth by the actor.

In a perfect word, I would agree with this. There are segments of the fandom now that are super pissed that the next movie Batman seems to be a more comic-booky one with JLA coming, and afraid that this may mean "doom" for Batman. If it was me, I would wait a decade before another Batman film. Put him on the shelf for a while and let the other DC heroes shine for a bit. Then he can have one solo film before the JLA movie (I know that because of money they wont wait a decade, but at least wait 5 years). As for the Batman as Bond thing, it could work, it could not, I really don't care. What I really don't wanna see is more long drawn out origin stories. Do "re-quels" a la Incredible Hulk (show the origin in the first 5 minutes and then be done with it) if you must, but I don't wanna see another montage of Bruce training for the sake of it. BB did it well, and that was less than a decade ago.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 05:29
Okay, so you argument is that B&R had absolutely nothing to do with it?

I stated above that Schuemocker destroyed everything the 1980s resurgence of Batman had achieved. That would certainly include B&R and the lack of enthusiasm by the press and public of any new Batman movies after 1997.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 05:29If you're going to reinvent the character in the end anyway, why not simply create a brand new villain? Had Crane been replaced by an original character, I'd probably be willing to cut the Nolan movies a bit more slack in terms of the liberties they took not just with him but also with other characters.

My point is you can either create a new character or write compelling stories with the current rogues gallery. It doesn't matter who the villain is so long as they are given good material and have a superb actor/director to bring it to life.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 05:29
If you're going to reinvent the character in the end anyway, why not simply create a brand new villain? Had Crane been replaced by an original character, I'd probably be willing to cut the Nolan movies a bit more slack in terms of the liberties they took not just with him but also with other characters.

This slightly deviates from the main discussion.. I think the only problem is that when Team Burton did it (e.g. the Penguin) certain fans were up in arms and condemned BR as an "in name only" Batman movie, while when Team Nolan did it too, the same fans hailed it as genius. Same with a few casting choices (5'10" Keaton is "too short" for Batman, while the equally "short" 5'10" Tom Hardy is fine as Bane... etc, etc) and a few other things. Double standards.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Thu, 17 Jan  2013, 09:49This slightly deviates from the main discussion.. I think the only problem is that when Team Burton did it (e.g. the Penguin) certain fans were up in arms and condemned BR as an "in name only" Batman movie, while when Team Nolan did it too, the same fans hailed it as genius. Same with a few casting choices (5'10" Keaton is "too short" for Batman, while the equally "short" 5'10" Tom Hardy is fine as Bane... etc, etc) and a few other things. Double standards.

This.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Thu, 17 Jan  2013, 09:49

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 16 Jan  2013, 05:29
If you're going to reinvent the character in the end anyway, why not simply create a brand new villain? Had Crane been replaced by an original character, I'd probably be willing to cut the Nolan movies a bit more slack in terms of the liberties they took not just with him but also with other characters.

This slightly deviates from the main discussion.. I think the only problem is that when Team Burton did it (e.g. the Penguin) certain fans were up in arms and condemned BR as an "in name only" Batman movie, while when Team Nolan did it too, the same fans hailed it as genius. Same with a few casting choices (5'10" Keaton is "too short" for Batman, while the equally "short" 5'10" Tom Hardy is fine as Bane... etc, etc) and a few other things. Double standards.

I was about to start a new thread regarding the ridiculous criticisms of The Penguin in Batman Returns. All I can say here is well said!

Gets better. Burton adapted the Golden Age Batman and is mercilessly harassed about it to this day.

Nolan (supposedly) adapted the Golden Age Joker and is hailed as a genius.

^I would say Nolan's Joker had more of a Killing Joke influence, but that's probably beside the point.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 18 Jan  2013, 03:05
Gets better. Burton adapted the Golden Age Batman and is mercilessly harassed about it to this day.

Nolan (supposedly) adapted the Golden Age Joker and is hailed as a genius.

Burton gave the Penguin a deformity, a "tragic" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "No respect for the source material".

Nolan gave Bane a deformity, a "woobie" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "Reinventing the character"

And the age old argument you see which gives it all a free pass:

"Bane isn't that good in the comics anyway. Let Nolan do what he wants, he'll make him better than what's come before anyway."  ::)

Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Fri, 18 Jan  2013, 17:44^I would say Nolan's Joker had more of a Killing Joke influence, but that's probably beside the point.

I've seen quotations aplenty calling back to Batman #1 as the starting point for Nolan's Joker. Between his mob associations, the public announcements of his crimes, killing some people, getting caught and then escaping that same night, I feel like I can draw a much straighter line to Batman #1. Sure, aspects of his agenda tie in to TKJ (all it takes is one bad day/when the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other) but I'd argue at least 90% of what he does in TDK comes from the Golden Age. Or, as was my original point, Burton gets crucified for adapting the Golden Age Batman while Nolan gets a free pass on adapting the Golden Age Joker.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat, 19 Jan  2013, 00:57Burton gave the Penguin a deformity, a "tragic" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "No respect for the source material".

Nolan gave Bane a deformity, a "woobie" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "Reinventing the character"

Exactly that. The key difference though is that both Penguins have an affection for high society and the finer things. All Burton did was give an explanation for that and throw in some physical deformities. And I'm not really aware of Penguin's pre-Burton origin (or if he even had one). I'd be willing to cut Burton some slack in this case. But the Joker's origin had been established for decades before Nolan showed up.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Jan  2013, 01:21And the age old argument you see which gives it all a free pass:

"Bane isn't that good in the comics anyway. Let Nolan do what he wants, he'll make him better than what's come before anyway."  ::)

Yeah, I've heard that one a few times too. I just love being preached at about what the comics are really all about by someone who's read a whoppin' six trades, don't you?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Jan  2013, 01:04

Quote from: ElCuervoMuerto on Fri, 18 Jan  2013, 17:44^I would say Nolan's Joker had more of a Killing Joke influence, but that's probably beside the point.

I've seen quotations aplenty calling back to Batman #1 as the starting point for Nolan's Joker. Between his mob associations, the public announcements of his crimes, killing some people, getting caught and then escaping that same night, I feel like I can draw a much straighter line to Batman #1. Sure, aspects of his agenda tie in to TKJ (all it takes is one bad day/when the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other) but I'd argue at least 90% of what he does in TDK comes from the Golden Age. Or, as was my original point, Burton gets crucified for adapting the Golden Age Batman while Nolan gets a free pass on adapting the Golden Age Joker.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat, 19 Jan  2013, 00:57Burton gave the Penguin a deformity, a "tragic" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "No respect for the source material".

Nolan gave Bane a deformity, a "woobie" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "Reinventing the character"

Exactly that. The key difference though is that both Penguins have an affection for high society and the finer things. All Burton did was give an explanation for that and throw in some physical deformities. And I'm not really aware of Penguin's pre-Burton origin (or if he even had one). I'd be willing to cut Burton some slack in this case. But the Joker's origin had been established for decades before Nolan showed up.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 19 Jan  2013, 01:21And the age old argument you see which gives it all a free pass:

"Bane isn't that good in the comics anyway. Let Nolan do what he wants, he'll make him better than what's come before anyway."  ::)

Yeah, I've heard that one a few times too. I just love being preached at about what the comics are really all about by someone who's read a whoppin' six trades, don't you?

I wrote about The Penguin's comic origins just recently on the Batman Returns section.

In a version I read his father dies of pneumonia after catching it from rain and his mother therefore forces him to always carry an umbrella no matter the weather (hence his trademark weapon). He has an affinity for birdlife (I think his parents ran a pet store). He's bullied at school and humiliated being called, er, "The Penguin" due to his stumpy look and beaky nose. In one version he asks a girl out to a high school dance and wears a sort of tuxedo that doesn't fit him, triggering his nickname. Oh and a bunch of bullies ransack his parent's pet store at one point giving him his twisted hatred.

Just a condensed version but yeah real "heresy" Burton had no desire to bring this "epic" story to the big screen. His version was so much more interesting and sad and should have been adopted by DC Comics in the way they brought in Harley Quinn or Montoya. Especially the idea of a darker version of the Wayne family with his wealthy (but sickminded) parents. I just wish Burton had explained his use for umbrella's which sorta got lost. Guess he may have used them in acts in his circus days?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 21 Jan  2013, 01:04
I've seen quotations aplenty calling back to Batman #1 as the starting point for Nolan's Joker. Between his mob associations, the public announcements of his crimes, killing some people, getting caught and then escaping that same night, I feel like I can draw a much straighter line to Batman #1. Sure, aspects of his agenda tie in to TKJ (all it takes is one bad day/when the chips are down, these civilized people will eat each other) but I'd argue at least 90% of what he does in TDK comes from the Golden Age. Or, as was my original point, Burton gets crucified for adapting the Golden Age Batman while Nolan gets a free pass on adapting the Golden Age Joker.

I've made this argument so many times on SHH, and I would just get blasted for it every time.

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat, 19 Jan  2013, 00:57Burton gave the Penguin a deformity, a "tragic" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "No respect for the source material".

Nolan gave Bane a deformity, a "woobie" side and an origin/background that deviates from the comics. "Reinventing the character"

Truth be told comic book fans don't know what they want. But it always seems funny to me that they can accept certain changes to the source material but not other changes.

What I want? A Batman film that's tonally more Burton/Schumacher than Nolan. And start right off with the villains being Clayface and Man-Bat.

Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Fri, 25 Jan  2013, 06:37What I want? A Batman film that's tonally more Burton/Schumacher than Nolan. And start right off with the villains being Clayface and Man-Bat.

Can somebody buy this guy a beer already?

New villains are clearly key to the next iteration. Nolan started very well indeed with Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul. I wanted him to handle more foes that have never reached the screen before. I never wanted him to follow up that Joker card ending of Begins. I admit it gave me a thrill at the time but I was vastly disappointed when The Joker was announced in 2007.

It's interesting I think that Nolan on taking the job in 2004 chose deliberately not to use any villains that had previously been seen in earlier movies.

In the making of the Dark Knight Trilogy book there is a section in which David Goyer made suggestions to Nolan of what new villains they could have used for Begins. Nolan rejects every one of them (I can imagine him raising an eyebrow at the mention of each character). Names such as Mad Hatter, Killer Croc, Calendar Man and Clayface were all stated to him. It's very funny to read at how he shot each of them down but nevertheless hurtful that he never had the faith to go for something totally new and obscure for the later sequels.

Been thinking about this a bit lately. A page one reboot just seems like a fundamentally bad idea to me because inevitably comparisons will be drawn to the Nolan series. Whether anybody likes it or not, that is Batman in cinema for people right now.

So why not do a continuity-agnostic film (or series of films) which riff on everything that's come before? One way of suggesting/supporting that concept is the Batcave. Say Bruce goes down there at some point and the camera pans around the Batcave...

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20111231185954%2Fbatman%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe3%2FBatmobile_003.jpg&hash=bcbc3f0f74bc6c5aafae1b85e551a07a173358c8)

... and we see all or most of the Batmobiles from the other movies in there? Adam West, Batman 1989/Returns, Forever, & Robin as well as the Tumbler?

Since we're at it...

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi219.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc131%2FJokerfan1980%2FPan07.jpg&hash=f93e1307134dd98e603f6f510e5cd7ae3ac3c25c)

... why not do the same with the various Batman costumes up to this point? The Adam West stuff may not fit in too well (although maybe it would) but the other costumes could all be used (and, yes, include the O'Donnell and Silverstone costumes too). The idea is to validate all previous eras but endorse/continue none of them. This has been done in the comics to no end in the past several years so I don't see a reason why something similar couldn't also be done on film.

If a new film goes back to being only for the family, then hopefully it's something like this. ???

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 23 Mar  2013, 05:25
Been thinking about this a bit lately. A page one reboot just seems like a fundamentally bad idea to me because inevitably comparisons will be drawn to the Nolan series. Whether anybody likes it or not, that is Batman in cinema for people right now.

So why not do a continuity-agnostic film (or series of films) which riff on everything that's come before? One way of suggesting/supporting that concept is the Batcave. Say Bruce goes down there at some point and the camera pans around the Batcave...

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages3.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20111231185954%2Fbatman%2Fimages%2Fe%2Fe3%2FBatmobile_003.jpg&hash=bcbc3f0f74bc6c5aafae1b85e551a07a173358c8)

... and we see all or most of the Batmobiles from the other movies in there? Adam West, Batman 1989/Returns, Forever, & Robin as well as the Tumbler?

Since we're at it...

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi219.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fcc131%2FJokerfan1980%2FPan07.jpg&hash=f93e1307134dd98e603f6f510e5cd7ae3ac3c25c)

... why not do the same with the various Batman costumes up to this point? The Adam West stuff may not fit in too well (although maybe it would) but the other costumes could all be used (and, yes, include the O'Donnell and Silverstone costumes too). The idea is to validate all previous eras but endorse/continue none of them. This has been done in the comics to no end in the past several years so I don't see a reason why something similar couldn't also be done on film.

I really like your ideas !

this would be a great idea for a game

Quote from: SilentEnigma on Sat, 23 Mar  2013, 22:03
this would be a great idea for a game

Definitely. People are always wanting movie bat suit skins in the Arkham series, and to drive the vehicles. Straight up giving a spread of filmic history in an original type story would sell like hotcakes.

I for one am getting sick of kevlar Batsuits. I don't care if it looks absurd that Batman doesn't wear a bulletproof costume - I wouldn't mind if they design a more flexible costume that helps the actor move easily.

IMO you could have some REAAALLY cool NOIR effects in the cave which has been posted above. via the use of glass, ultra-sonic beams, lenses waterfalls etc,,,

some really freaky/cool distorted images of him looking gigantic/normal-sized whilst walking through the cave. just to sort of disorient and freak the audience out.

That's one thing I thought the Schumacher films got right. I actually really like the way the Batcave looked in those films. Although, I hope we get something even better in a reboot.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 29 Mar  2013, 20:29
That's one thing I thought the Schumacher films got right. I actually really like the way the Batcave looked in those films. Although, I hope we get something even better in a reboot.

Agreed. They weren't just caves, therefore the batcave by default. They were the batcave all over. Something to get excited about. Both Schumacher and Burton got this right.

Nothing against the Batcaves we've seen up to now but it would be kind of cool to see a Batcave with the huge playing card suspended from the ceiling, the dinosaur, the giant motherfvcking penny, the display cases, all that stuff.

Batman Next Film: 4 Reasons Why Robin Should Be The Main Focus

http://whatculture.com/film/batman-next-film-4-reasons-why-robin-should-be-the-main-focus.php#6T18dBwtSiaJWq4H.99 (http://whatculture.com/film/batman-next-film-4-reasons-why-robin-should-be-the-main-focus.php#6T18dBwtSiaJWq4H.99)

QuoteFor me, to achieve the true portrayal of Batman on screen, he should seem slightly unhinged. He should be a loner when he is not playing the Bruce Wayne persona, a slightly crazy millionaire detached from the rest of society. Keaton's Batman probably came closest to this but ultimately a studio couldn't make a Batman film with a main character that the audience can't relate to or feel sympathy for.

??? Really? So how come there are people out there who still believe that Michael Keaton was the best actor to portray Batman in live action? Or am I missing something here?

QuoteIf Robin were the lead in the picture, however, then it would allow a filmmaker to take this approach with the Batman character. Robin could be the audience surrogate in a plot where a broken and sympathetic orphan is taken in by a reclusive and emotionally distant millionaire who, over the course of the film, learns to open up and accept others (awww). Having a relatable Robin who shows fear and is more open with his emotions would allow you to portray Bruce Wayne as the truly broken individual he is and would allow for a different and far more pure portrayal of Batman than we have seen before.

Okay maybe that idea seems reasonable, although on the downside one might ask why would a reclusive millionaire want to adopt anyone in the first place? Also, I'm honestly not really comfortable about the idea of a pre-teen/teenage kid as a crime-fighter, not after seeing Kick-Ass. 

QuoteUsing Robin as the lead as an inexperienced crime fighter raises the stakes of a Batman movie without going to as epic a scale as The Dark Knight Rises did.

With a better writer, it might even make the film more cohesive and logical without going to as absurd a scale as The Dark Knight Rises did  (though it was good for a laugh, I'll give it that). 

QuoteFurthermore, if the studio did take this approach then they could attempt a very brave plot that would give this new incarnation of Batman the push it needs to escape from Nolan's shadow. Imagine if Robin was established as the lead character in the first couple of movies in this new continuity only to be beaten to death by The Joker at the end of the first sequel. It would definitely be shocking enough to justify the reboot and also to justify introducing the character of the Joker again so soon after Heath Ledger's definitive portrayal. Imagine further if the studio were able to complete this plot arc before the proposed Justice League movie. Having Batman suffer such a personal tragedy before the big team up would provide some great drama at the start of such a film, potentially as the result of him vowing to never work with others again to prevent a similar disaster from occurring.

First I need to get this off my chest: the last time I looked at my avatar, the Joker does not sport a Glasgow smile on his face. Not to insult anyone who likes Ledger's performance, but I can't see how that version is  the definitive portrayal of the character.

Second, I suppose the idea that Batman overcomes his grief when in the company of the Justice League doesn't sound too unreasonable. Though I hope that a writer doesn't take this as an opportunity to have Batman only feeling comfortable working with "superhumans", and will never involve himself with other sidekicks other than Robin.

Astethically, I liked Ledger's Joker. But as far as characterization, sure, there was some really good Joker moments, but I wouldn't even come close to calling his version "definitive". He still isn't even my favorite live action version of the character.

nearly a year later now people seems to like my 'hush' idea  :)

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 30 Mar  2013, 15:15Really? So how come there are people out there who still believe that Michael Keaton was the best actor to portray Batman in live action?

Some people really liked Keaton in the role. Several of them are on this forum.