Larry Young
Master Member
Why'd you post in public on the Internet, then? :lol
Christian Bale Calls it Quits After Dark Knight Rises
- Thread starter Jedifyfe
- Start date
Why'd you post in public on the Internet, then? :lol
nickytea
Master Member
You read my mind.
I felt offended that I had actually taken the time to read the entire novel posted only to be sent off with that message. Talk about spitting on respectful discourse. (Not that most of this thread has been any better.)
"I expect you to read everything of what I say, removed from the ramifications of the situation in which I say it."
Cuz that's what people do, man! POST stuff on the INTERNETS!!1
Well, you're, of course, free to respond with anything you want. And I don't mind "discussing" anything. I'm just saying, don't anyone expect me to ARGUE about anything (which seems to be the more modern definition of "debate").
Larry Young
Master Member
Hydra Nazi bastards!
cboath
Master Member
The key word is 'suit'. No one is advocating the size of batman in the game or in a comic - just that the suit is gray with a really dark blue cowl/cape/etc. The point is that EVERY incarnation since 89 has had him in a black suit. 7 movies so far, with an 8th on the way.
I gotta say, though, if they can give as good a story as AC and use a steroid freak in the process, i'd watch. People paid to see Arnie as Mr. Freeze which is basically the same thing. Granted that one sucked big time, but still.
I'd still like to see more of a comic approach in the vane of the 89 movie. Seeing Chicago pulled me right out of TDK. You can use actual cities without using blatantly obvious shots that say 'hey, this is chicago' or whatever city you're in. I'm wondering if i'll be able to easily spot Pittsburgh (outside the stadium shots) in TDKR. I actually thought they did a better job of making a Gotham comic/real world version in BB. It was a compilation of many things with FX additions to make it unique. That worked. Flat out using chicago did not.
oujala
Well-Known Member
I guess it's different strokes and all. I do not want to see a Batman movie where Clayface or Killer Croc can be the villain. Not in the comic book sense anyway. Actually, I don't want to see the comics on the screen, I want them translated to it.
In that respect, I really like the Nolan films "realism"...excluding this flying Bat-whatever.
Hopefully that pans out.
In that respect, I really like the Nolan films "realism"...excluding this flying Bat-whatever.
Hopefully that pans out.
I'd like them to try a modern era very comics derived version.
I appreciate Nolan's efforts deeply and it's been the closest yet.
But there is still plenty of room to get right up in that source material.
I appreciate Nolan's efforts deeply and it's been the closest yet.
But there is still plenty of room to get right up in that source material.
KorrickUSCM
Well-Known Member
I've read a few places that it is actually a helicopter with the blades being put in with cgi. I think it will work.
He would be an amazing Kingdom Come Superman!
darthslick
New Member
I was only 9 years old when I saw Michael Keaton as Batman/Bruce Wayne and Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier/The Joker on the big screen. In my mind that's how it will always be. I agree... After that it's like watching the Jame's Bond series.
JMChladek
Sr Member
The way I see it, most every movie franchise tends to only be able to maintain itself for three films at most. After that, it begins to run out of gas or goes off on a different tangent and it has been this way for many years. The Superman films only effectively lasted that long (and 3 was not the same high standard as 1 and 2). The last Batman arc was the same way (with the quality kind of going down hill for the last two films and only Alfred staying in all four). Star Wars only survived three parts before Lucas did the prequel trilogy after two decades. Spiderman only lasted three, Ironman I don't see going much past three unless the third one (which won't have the director from the first two) is REALLY good.
About the ONLY franchise that seemed to last longer than three films was Star Trek with the TOS cast. But still, the best story arc of that whole series IMHO was 2, 3 and 4. ST5 was meh and 6 was much better because it was the final chapter. TNG's cast only lasted three films. Bond kind of was successful at that as well since although the actors playing 007 may have changed, the production crew remained together and kept doing it because they knew it was their livelyhood.
I think part of the problem why you almost never see a breakout of the three film arc has to do with the time involved from all parties. On average it takes about two or three years between films before the sequels come out. So at the end of three films, we are talking about cast and crew putting anywhere from six to nine years of their time into the production. At the end of that, they want to move on to other things for various reasons. If they stick at it longer, it is almost like the career kiss of death as then they get pigeonholed into ONLY doing those films and don't get signed onto other projects UNLESS for some reason the quality and standards continues to remain high and the box office returns remain good. Plus, a good looking star at age 30 might begin to look a bit different at age 40 and it can be hard to maintain a high level of fitness if the role demands it and look EXACTLY the same for a story that might take place only a few months after the previous one (Arnie began to run into that problem when he did T3, which was about 15 years after the first Terminator film).
As such, I am not surprised that the Nolan Batman arc is coming to an end after three films.
About the ONLY franchise that seemed to last longer than three films was Star Trek with the TOS cast. But still, the best story arc of that whole series IMHO was 2, 3 and 4. ST5 was meh and 6 was much better because it was the final chapter. TNG's cast only lasted three films. Bond kind of was successful at that as well since although the actors playing 007 may have changed, the production crew remained together and kept doing it because they knew it was their livelyhood.
I think part of the problem why you almost never see a breakout of the three film arc has to do with the time involved from all parties. On average it takes about two or three years between films before the sequels come out. So at the end of three films, we are talking about cast and crew putting anywhere from six to nine years of their time into the production. At the end of that, they want to move on to other things for various reasons. If they stick at it longer, it is almost like the career kiss of death as then they get pigeonholed into ONLY doing those films and don't get signed onto other projects UNLESS for some reason the quality and standards continues to remain high and the box office returns remain good. Plus, a good looking star at age 30 might begin to look a bit different at age 40 and it can be hard to maintain a high level of fitness if the role demands it and look EXACTLY the same for a story that might take place only a few months after the previous one (Arnie began to run into that problem when he did T3, which was about 15 years after the first Terminator film).
As such, I am not surprised that the Nolan Batman arc is coming to an end after three films.
Master Dahark
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you mentioned Bond, because one day I'd love for the Batman movies to take a note from that series. Batman has been spitting out comics and stories since 1939 and if they wanted to, they could make Batman movies FOREVER (no rebooting) and just get new actors every few years. That would be something.
But movies are supposed to go somewhere. Character development, story arc,...and stuff. Comic books and TV shows just repeat again and again. The people don't change. Villains don't die. It's the wrestling match of the week, or month.
So in that way James Bond is a comic. Most of them anyway.
Batman has never had the correct comic book suit. Unless you go back to the 1940s serials. Adam West had purple. Keaton black rubber.
I like the gray color. It's urban camo. But light blue? And a bright yellow belt?!
Strange for a guy that wants to create fear.
So in that way James Bond is a comic. Most of them anyway.
Batman has never had the correct comic book suit. Unless you go back to the 1940s serials. Adam West had purple. Keaton black rubber.
I like the gray color. It's urban camo. But light blue? And a bright yellow belt?!
Strange for a guy that wants to create fear.
There's one thing about the newest version of Bats,since the '89 film anyway,that a lot of people ether forget or haven't noticed:with all the armor and gadgets Batman is kinda becoming Iron Man......
And it gray and BLACK not BLUE fer gawd's sake the blue was to make him easier to color back in the 30's!
Big thing is the films all want action,action,action but really Batman is less violence and more fear/thinking/stalking around he's a detective and to my mind a Batman who is less forceful and more likely to swoop in on a guy in the dark and take him out fast is a bit more interesting.
And it gray and BLACK not BLUE fer gawd's sake the blue was to make him easier to color back in the 30's!
Big thing is the films all want action,action,action but really Batman is less violence and more fear/thinking/stalking around he's a detective and to my mind a Batman who is less forceful and more likely to swoop in on a guy in the dark and take him out fast is a bit more interesting.
Looks kind of blue to me.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b_LLegHgb...DoU/SfEgmhhucYY/s1600/Batman_ages-box-set.jpg
Zombie_61
Master Member
Warner Brothers Entertainment owns DC Comics, so I don't see the rights being an issue any time soon. :lol
I believe this is the plan at WB.
If the reboot of Spider-Man works (and the reboot of Superman) it would be logical to think that WB would do the same. It helps keep the content fresh. Besides, most of these superhero movies tend to fall off the cliff by the third movie anyway.
Similar threads
