what kind of film should the next one be? (TDKR spoilers)

[Rebel]

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! http://www.facebook.com/pages/Batman-3-Tim-BurtonMichael-KeatonDanny-Elfman/289064001193311

[Rebel]

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!

[Bobthegoon89]

Not 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[DarkestKnight]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

It was among the Batman fans I know

The 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.

I 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?

[DarkestKnight]

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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

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.

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.

[ElCuervoMuerto]

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.

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.

[DarkestKnight]

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.

[Azrael]

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.