Messages

 I think the quick reboot of SpiderMan, the double reboot of Superman and the (now 6) X-Men movies that have constant story archs and origins interest leaves the fan culture's thirst never fully quenched. And of course that is a very good thing for us fans and for the people profiting from it. But when you continually reboot the characters, it leads to destroying any contininous story narrative in the film series that I believe is far more enjoyable in the long run. It also helps when the same actors reprise the same roles during that time.

We were spoiled with that during the Nolan triligy and it really helped his story be that much more enjoyable. Gary Oldman is to Commissioner Gordon what Michael Keaton is to Batman. He proved to be that worthy and that valuable in the role and we as the audience benefited from his presence. I could easily say the same about Michael Caine and even Christian Bale, who definitely played a challenged and competant Bruce Wayne very well.

I think that's why most Batman fans I've spoken with all favor a multi-picture story arch with the same actors. Or a stand alone Batman film, possibly The Dark Knight Returns. And if they waited another 7-10 years, the timing would be right for someone to challenge Ledger for the Joker. An older, more devious Joker against a greyer, more troubled Bruce Wayne. It could work.

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.

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 Had Crane been replaced by an original character, I'd probably be willing to cut the Nolan movies a bit more slack in terms of the liberties they took not just with him but also with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.

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.

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.

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.

[even Batman's]

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?

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.

And 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.

The golden age was truly B89/BR and BTAS, which was directly influenced by the movies. Batman was great well before Nolan.

My thoughts too.

Nolan was a good director for Batman for these times just as Burton was for his. Both Batman and The Dark Knight are excellent stand alone films. But Batman (1989) has influenced my world in so many ways it would be impossible for me to try to map it all out. I can still remember being a young kid, reinacting the batwing seige on the parade in my hallway which I had converted into a street. My hallway walls were covered in posterboard that I'd painted buildings onto and my handheld camera followed my toy batwing as it dove down through the street with Danny Elfman's classic blasting in the background. That's the power of that movie. Keaton is still the best Batman, by far. It's just a shame he didn't have fight sequences to show him as an all around bad ass.

As for the next installment, my thoughts:

Title: The Caped Crusader or Knightfall

Plots: For TCC, I would prefer to see a story along the lines of A Death in the Family. Have the film start off with Batman and Robin fighting crime and have the plot twist involving Robin's origin, revealing he isn't the first Robin. After Jason Todd is murdered, Bruce Wayne decides he can't be Batman anymore. Only when the Joker surfaces and Bruce figures out he was responsible for the murder does he return as Batman. You could even have Superman make a cameo of some kind. This way you give credit to the original DITF storyline and you finally unite the two on screen for the potential for a spinoff (if you choose to go there).
  For Knightfall, you could continue the storyline from Nolan's TDKR. Instead of Azrael, make the new Batman Robin Blake and have his thirst for vengeance become a detractor to what Bruce Wayne's legacy was. When Bruce comes out of exile and confronts Blake, he discovers the new Batman extremely powerful and thirsty for power. A showdown would happen and Bruce would win, becoming Batman once again. You could even throw Bane in the mix, saying he wasn't killed by the batpod blast. (His chest armor)

*Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns should be made at some point but only if producers wish to tell the end of Bruce Wayne's story. This couldn't happen now for obvious reasons. You would have to reboot the franchise and have several new stories before having another coda involving that idea.

Duration: I'd like to see 3-5 made but not within the next 5-10 years. 2020 sounds good to me.

Robin: I would keep his participation to a minimum. I agree the character is a distraction on screen. Even if you feature him in a movie as already being established, you don't need to have him with Batman on every roof top or in the middle of every battle. Make the character more like Nightwing off the bat. You could even have Dick Grayson already starting to distance himself from Batman while he's still Robin, leading to the character transformation into Nightwing.

Joker: I wouldn't bring him into the full mix until you give the audience a nice taste first. Nolan did a good job with that at the end of BB because by then, everyone's expectations for the film had been met. Hinting at the Joker as Batman's next case was just about the juciest hook he could have thrown at the audience. I would keep him minimal for the first few films until it's the right moment and have him strike. The key for me with the character has to be the exploration into how his obsession with Batman means he can never actually kill Batman because it would destroy his only grip of any meaning to his own existence. That's the Joker story EVERYONE wants to be told.

Gotham City: Dark, gloomy. Crimson sun. Thunder and lightning with rain. Light snow with angelic cathedrals. Essentially, the very best of Burton with a touch of Blade Runner.

Batmobile: Keaton batmobile. Bring it back in a cheeky way that bridges the sappy with the savvy.

1st Villians: I'd go with the Riddler. He needs a good, solid story. I actually like Jim Carrey's performance but it doesn't do anything for the character in the long run.

Director: Someone who is hungry and has a good sense of the content. A flare for art direction and good dialogue is a must.


*Michael Madsen would make a great Detective Bullock. I would bring back Gary Oldman as Gordon, a role he was surprisingly born to play. And plus, he will age with the character so it works. And I could...could see Joaquin Phoenix as the Joker. Ledger proved anythings possible.

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.

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.