[QuickTidal]

So, since there is no thread about this yet, but we DO have a title amongst other things....shall we discuss?

Info we have:

The title is THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the film starts shooting in May 2011 in London, Los Angeles and an unknown third city, possibly New Orleans or Chicago....but since Bats is on the run from the law at the end of TDK, we can't expect to see a lot of Gotham methinks. But that's conjecture on my part.

Parts will again be shot in IMAX, with more scenes using the cameras than TDK, and the rest with Higgh Def 70MM. YAY!

There will be no unused TDK cutting room floor shots of Heath's Joker (as was rumoured)in the 3rd film, as Nolan would never do something like that and he rebuffed the rumour when it surfaced. The guy doesn't even use second unit cameras cause he is a perfectionist, I can't imagine he would try to bridge the two films in such a silly way.

No Riddler, or Penguin or anything like that.

The amazing Tom Hardy (INCEPTION) is in the cast and the latest rumours have him playing the main villain who is rumoured to be Dr. Hugo Strange.....a villain who would fit right in with Nolan's gritty, realistic Bat-Universe and would be a great addition. There are other rumours he will play Hush, but I like the Strange rumour better. He also, quite possibly may not play the villain at all, but perhaps another character.

It is also said that Nolan met with the following women: Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway and Keira Knightley.....one role is that of a new love interest for Bruce Wayne, and the second will be a villain (I gotta assume either Catwoman or Harley Quinn as both again fit into Nolans Gritty Bat-Universe). Also, I'd like to note that having Harley Quinn, a character long associated only with the Joker, would be a nice little nod and connection to the second flick. Also, Harley Quinn is such an amazingly messed up character. Far more so than Catwoman IMHO....she is as certifiable as the Joker is, and if not even moreso. That would be interesting to see.

What do you folks say?

[tiam]

I dont know that much about the DC universe so cant really apeculate about how good the villains will be but im glad its not the penguin or Riddler as theyve been ruined by previous film. Jack Nicholsons Joker was pretty good so I didnt go already hating the character.I thought it would still be set in Gotham though.

Really glad hes not using Ledgers deleted scenes. Would have taken away fom his TDK performance.

[amphibian]

How was the Penguin ruined by Tim Burton?

[Abyss]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

How was the Penguin ruined by Tim Burton?

Because BATMAN RETURNS was a poorly plotted, poorly scripted, badly done satire ladden mess trashing anything that was good about the relatively clever prior film.

And even Danny devito couldn't rescue the idiocy that flic had him do.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman only barely made that mess watchable.

[QuickTidal]

Abyss, on 05 January 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

How was the Penguin ruined by Tim Burton?

Because BATMAN RETURNS was a poorly plotted, poorly scripted, badly done satire ladden mess trashing anything that was good about the relatively clever prior film.

And even Danny devito couldn't rescue the idiocy that flic had him do.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman only barely made that mess watchable.

Both Burton Batman films are bad (RETURNS moreso than the first), and are poor examples of Batman on film. I will give the first one credit for trying, but I still can't stand it...Nicholson's Joker is ridiculous and made Ceasar Romero's 60's TV version look like Masterpiece theater.

Don't even get me started on Joel Shumachers two films (Forever and Batman & Robin)....cause they make Burton's RETURN look like high effing art.

Nolan thankfully showed up and gave us all the Batman films we, as fans, have always wanted. I recall sitting in the theatre after BATMAN BEGINS and turning to my friend and saying "Fuck. That was good!"...and then THE DARK KNIGHT came along and became my favourite film ever (Which the gf and I watched last night again, this time on Blu-Ray...and man does that film look gorgeous in High def!)

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2011 - 03:14 PM

[amphibian]

Abyss, on 05 January 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

Because BATMAN RETURNS was a poorly plotted, poorly scripted, badly done satire ladden mess trashing anything that was good about the relatively clever prior film.

And even Danny devito couldn't rescue the idiocy that flic had him do.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman only barely made that mess watchable.

I can see that point of view. However, I saw the film as being purposely haphazard in plotting, as a homage to some of the crazier things that Batman villains have gotten up to over the years. Even with that aside, I thought that the Cobblepot stuff was pretty damned good actually, with good character development. The only thing I didn't like was the final plot at the end with the rocket launcher penguins, but it was visually impressive in a way.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

Both Burton Batman films are bad (RETURNS moreso than the first), and are poor examples of Batman on film. I will give the first one credit for trying, but I still can't stand it...Nicholson's Joker is ridiculous and made Ceasar Romero's 60's TV version look like Masterpiece theater.

I quite like Nicholson's Joker. The AV Club did a nice piece on the Joker's various portrayals over the years and I agreed with their thesis that Nicholson and Ledger did a great job, while the Batman animated series from the 1990s has perhaps the definitive Joker.

Quote

and then THE DARK KNIGHT came along and became my favourite film ever

I can't fault something as subjective as "favorite film ever", but to have the quite flawed The Dark Knight as their favorite movie ever seems a disservice to other greater works that have been produced over the last 90ish years.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

Quote

and then THE DARK KNIGHT came along and became my favourite film ever

I can't fault something as subjective as "favorite film ever", but to have the quite flawed The Dark Knight as their favorite movie ever seems a disservice to other greater works that have been produced over the last 90ish years.

Dude...what?

Explain to me please how THE DARK KNIGHT is a flawed film (When most of the world thinks it is cinematic brilliance, in plotting, editing, writing, execution)?

[Bauchelain the Evil]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

So, since there is no thread about this yet, but we DO have a title amongst other things....shall we discuss?

Info we have:

The title is THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the film starts shooting in May 2011 in London, Los Angeles and an unknown third city, possibly New Orleans or Chicago....but since Bats is on the run from the law at the end of TDK, we can't expect to see a lot of Gotham methinks. But that's conjecture on my part.

Parts will again be shot in IMAX, with more scenes using the cameras than TDK, and the rest with Higgh Def 70MM. YAY!

There will be no unused TDK cutting room floor shots of Heath's Joker (as was rumoured)in the 3rd film, as Nolan would never do something like that and he rebuffed the rumour when it surfaced. The guy doesn't even use second unit cameras cause he is a perfectionist, I can't imagine he would try to bridge the two films in such a silly way.

No Riddler, or Penguin or anything like that.

The amazing Tom Hardy (INCEPTION) is in the cast and the latest rumours have him playing the main villain who is rumoured to be Dr. Hugo Strange.....a villain who would fit right in with Nolan's gritty, realistic Bat-Universe and would be a great addition. There are other rumours he will play Hush, but I like the Strange rumour better. He also, quite possibly may not play the villain at all, but perhaps another character.

It is also said that Nolan met with the following women: Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway and Keira Knightley.....one role is that of a new love interest for Bruce Wayne, and the second will be a villain (I gotta assume either Catwoman or Harley Quinn as both again fit into Nolans Gritty Bat-Universe). Also, I'd like to note that having Harley Quinn, a character long associated only with the Joker, would be a nice little nod and connection to the second flick. Also, Harley Quinn is such an amazingly messed up character. Far more so than Catwoman IMHO....she is as certifiable as the Joker is, and if not even moreso. That would be interesting to see.

What do you folks say?

First of all i think it will still be placed in Gotham. Batman on the run will mean simply that Batman will avoid officers, posssibly forced to fight some of them, and try to be as stealthy as possible rather than leaving Gotham, IMO. After all it would be highly suspicious if both Batman and Bruce Wayne disappear at the same time.

Great news about Hugo Strange being the villain, I like all three films are going with the psychologic enemies of Batman ( first Scarecrow then Joker now Strange)

I don't know about Harley Quinn. I can't really Imagine her without the Joker.

Also, I really liked De Vito's Penguin.

[amphibian]

Where does the Joker go after Batman jumps out the window?

The entire Two-Face B-plot was not handled as well the A storyline of the Joker.

Maggie Gyllenhall.

[QuickTidal]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 05 January 2011 - 03:59 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

So, since there is no thread about this yet, but we DO have a title amongst other things....shall we discuss?

Info we have:

The title is THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the film starts shooting in May 2011 in London, Los Angeles and an unknown third city, possibly New Orleans or Chicago....but since Bats is on the run from the law at the end of TDK, we can't expect to see a lot of Gotham methinks. But that's conjecture on my part.

Parts will again be shot in IMAX, with more scenes using the cameras than TDK, and the rest with Higgh Def 70MM. YAY!

There will be no unused TDK cutting room floor shots of Heath's Joker (as was rumoured)in the 3rd film, as Nolan would never do something like that and he rebuffed the rumour when it surfaced. The guy doesn't even use second unit cameras cause he is a perfectionist, I can't imagine he would try to bridge the two films in such a silly way.

No Riddler, or Penguin or anything like that.

The amazing Tom Hardy (INCEPTION) is in the cast and the latest rumours have him playing the main villain who is rumoured to be Dr. Hugo Strange.....a villain who would fit right in with Nolan's gritty, realistic Bat-Universe and would be a great addition. There are other rumours he will play Hush, but I like the Strange rumour better. He also, quite possibly may not play the villain at all, but perhaps another character.

It is also said that Nolan met with the following women: Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway and Keira Knightley.....one role is that of a new love interest for Bruce Wayne, and the second will be a villain (I gotta assume either Catwoman or Harley Quinn as both again fit into Nolans Gritty Bat-Universe). Also, I'd like to note that having Harley Quinn, a character long associated only with the Joker, would be a nice little nod and connection to the second flick. Also, Harley Quinn is such an amazingly messed up character. Far more so than Catwoman IMHO....she is as certifiable as the Joker is, and if not even moreso. That would be interesting to see.

What do you folks say?

First of all i think it will still be placed in Gotham. Batman on the run will mean simply that Batman will avoid officers, posssibly forced to fight some of them, and try to be as stealthy as possible rather than leaving Gotham, IMO. After all it would be highly suspicious if both Batman and Bruce Wayne disappear at the same time.

A good point indeed. I just know that they are specifically shooting in both London UK and Los Angeles mainly..both of which cannot pass for the same Gotham as Chicago did. That said, the third city is unknown...and is likely Chicago...but also may be New Orleans. At any rate, no you are totally right, having Bruce Wayne disappear from Gotham at the same time as Bats is highly suspicious......so perhaps Wayne will be in Gotham, but be doing things in other cities as Batman? Or maybe he does the whole CEO Bruce Wayne travels to other cities to do things for the business? Hard to tell at this point, but that's a very good point nonetheless sir and something I'd not thought of.

[Abyss]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 03:36 PM, said:

...I can see that point of view. However, I saw the film as being purposely haphazard in plotting, as a homage to some of the crazier things that Batman villains have gotten up to over the years. Even with that aside, I thought that the Cobblepot stuff was pretty damned good actually, with good character development. ...

Feh... go watch the movie again. Watch an evil mime.. yes, an evil mime... casually walk onto stage, pick up a random baby, thank the audience while they stand there looking like idiots, and then escape down a conveniently open manhole. Gasp with shock as the mime's voice screams 'Ahhh! It's the horrible penguin man!'. Thrill as Devito rises from the manhole riding a massive rubber ducky, with the rescued baby, to the adulation of the crowd. And then tell me how this flic has any merit beyond Michelle Pfeifer in tight leather.

Quote

The only thing I didn't like was the final plot at the end with the rocket launcher penguins, but it was visually impressive in a way. ...

No it wasn't. it was the batboat fighting rocket launcher penguins.

Look, i like weaponzied flightless waterfowl as much as the next geek, but it has no place in anything Batman.

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 04:02 PM, said:

Where does the Joker go after Batman jumps out the window?

To cause more carnage? I mean, it ain't rocket science. The joker always has an escape plan. This time it was throwing Rachel out the window to occupy Bats while he ran away. Easy. How does that need explained?

Quote

The entire Two-Face B-plot was not handled as well the A storyline of the Joker.

Actually, I fully feel that this is the MOST realized version of the Harvey Dent character ever. Dent's story in the comics was never one of villainry, but one of the good guy who is trying so hard to deal with the scum in his city that he goes over the edge into dark territory. Add to that, Batman and the police (through no fault of theirs, but rather due to the Joker giving out the wrong addresses for each captive on purpose) rescue him instead of Rachel. It pushes him over the edge. That plotline is nearly perfect. Two-Face, in the comics, is an angry guy who was once good, pushed over the edge. They achieved this IMHO. Also, the Joker's storyline is not the A Line plot...he is the catalyst for Dent..he exists to cause the havoc that will cause Gotham's best guy to go bad...and Harvey's story is the main plotline....which is why the film ends with Batman saving Dent's Rep, and not anything else to do with the Joker (cause he had the Joker beat for the time being).

Quote

Maggie Gyllenhall.

Okay, she's ugly, she looks like her face melted...but her acting is pretty good. She's not nearly on the level of the other thespians in the film by a long shot...but, she was less annoying in the Rachel Dawes roll than Katie Holmes was.

Also, how do three comments, two of which are nitpicking methinks, make for a deeply flawed film?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2011 - 04:16 PM

[Aptorian]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

The title is THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the film starts shooting in May 2011 in London, Los Angeles and an unknown third city, possibly New Orleans or Chicago....but since Bats is on the run from the law at the end of TDK, we can't expect to see a lot of Gotham methinks. But that's conjecture on my part.

Like Bauchelain says, I can easily see it taking place in Gotham, in fact, where else do you want Batman to go? Metropolis? Gotham is his city. His hunting ground. Just because a story has been spun about Batman killing Harvey Dent doesn't mean he will suddenly be a hunted animal with no where to go or hide. First of all there are going to be police officers who respect Batman for what he does. because he does what they can't do. Second of all, the police don't really have the technology to track and hunt Batman, in that area Batman holds all the cards.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

The amazing Tom Hardy (INCEPTION) is in the cast and the latest rumours have him playing the main villain who is rumoured to be Dr. Hugo Strange.....a villain who would fit right in with Nolan's gritty, realistic Bat-Universe and would be a great addition. There are other rumours he will play Hush, but I like the Strange rumour better. He also, quite possibly may not play the villain at all, but perhaps another character.

Is this rumour perhaps related to the revelation that Hugo Strange is also one of the Major bad guys in the upcoming Batman game "Arkham City" the sequel to the awesome "Arkham Asylum"?

I've never read or seen any material with Hugo Strange in it, but from the sound of it, it could be quite interesting to see an evil psychiatrist analysing Bruce Wayne and getting into the psyche of the bat.

Abyss, on 05 January 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

How was the Penguin ruined by Tim Burton?

Because BATMAN RETURNS was a poorly plotted, poorly scripted, badly done satire ladden mess trashing anything that was good about the relatively clever prior film.

And even Danny devito couldn't rescue the idiocy that flic had him do.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman only barely made that mess watchable.

I have to say that I am on Team Burton with Amphibian.

The first two Batman films were the best Batman films you could imagine in the 90s. They were a surprisingly dark tale of the bat in a time when every one still had the goofy 60s batman in grey spandex in their minds. You have to think of it as an evolution of super hero movies. At the time the Batman films were awesome. The bad guys were great. The setting typically gothic and weird as you would expect from Burton. I'll admit that the stories weren't exactly stellar but they were big and spectacular, which was what the audience wanted. This modern wave of realism and seriousness in your action movies was still a foreign idea back when bigger and more silly action films was a stable.

The only thing I never really liked about the 90s batman films was Michael Keaton. I really like the guy. He's had some great roles. But he was not right for Batman.

(Also the 90s bat-mobile was fucking awesome)

This post has been edited by Jenisapt Rul: 05 January 2011 - 04:41 PM

[QuickTidal]

Jenisapt Rul, on 05 January 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

The title is THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, and the film starts shooting in May 2011 in London, Los Angeles and an unknown third city, possibly New Orleans or Chicago....but since Bats is on the run from the law at the end of TDK, we can't expect to see a lot of Gotham methinks. But that's conjecture on my part.

Like Bauchelain says, I can easily see it taking place in Gotham, in fact, where else do you want Batman to go? Metropolis? Gotham is his city. His hunting ground. Just because a story has been spun about Batman killing Harvey Dent doesn't mean he will suddenly be a hunted animal with no where to go or hide. First of all there are going to be police officers who respect Batman for what he does. because he does what they can't do. Second of all, the police don't really have the technology to track and hunt Batman, in that area Batman holds all the cards.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

The amazing Tom Hardy (INCEPTION) is in the cast and the latest rumours have him playing the main villain who is rumoured to be Dr. Hugo Strange.....a villain who would fit right in with Nolan's gritty, realistic Bat-Universe and would be a great addition. There are other rumours he will play Hush, but I like the Strange rumour better. He also, quite possibly may not play the villain at all, but perhaps another character.

Is this rumour perhaps related to the revelation that Hugo Strange is also one of the Major bad guys in the upcoming Batman game "Arkham City" the sequel to the awesome "Arkham Asylum"?

I've never read or seen any material with Hugo Strange in it, but from the sound of it, it could be quite interesting to see an evil psychiatrist analysing Bruce Wayne and getting into the psyche of the bat.

Abyss, on 05 January 2011 - 02:58 PM, said:

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 02:47 PM, said:

How was the Penguin ruined by Tim Burton?

Because BATMAN RETURNS was a poorly plotted, poorly scripted, badly done satire ladden mess trashing anything that was good about the relatively clever prior film.

And even Danny devito couldn't rescue the idiocy that flic had him do.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman only barely made that mess watchable.

I have to say that I am on Team Burton with Amphibian.

The first two Batman films were the best Batman films you could imagine in the 90s. They were a surprisingly dark tale of the bat in a time when every one still had the goofy 60s batman in grey spandex in their minds. You have to think of it as an evolution of super hero movies. At the time the Batman films were awesome. The bad guys were great. The setting typically gothic and weird as you would expect from Burton. I'll admit that the stories weren't exactly stellar but they were big and spectacular, which was what the audience wanted. This modern wave of realism and seriousness in your action movies was still a foreign idea back when bigger and more silly action films was a stable.

The only thing I never really liked about the 90s batman films was Michael Keaton. I really like the guy. He's had some great roles. But he was not right for Batman.

(Also the 90s bat-mobile was fucking awesome)

True about the locale indeed, I may have mispoke. I just realized that most of the interior stuff for TDK and BB were done in the UK...so that may be used for sets as opposed to the city of London itself. Sorry, my bad.


About the Burton Batman films: No, they weren't the best that we could imagine. They were done by a guy (Burton) who admitted freely, that he had never read a Batman comic. To me that's a bad idea. Batman is not Burton's TYPE of Gothic. It's a more of a modern Gothic (in tone of story and the noir-ish backdrop, as opposed to actual Gothic scenery), not a Victorian Gothic like Burton used. His Gotham was too stylized (Giant effing Adonis statues Tim....really?!).

It's not like there wasn't a plethora of mine-able Bat-stories to script from at the time. Hell, The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller was out in 1986, Batman: Year One (also by Miller in 1987) is, to me, a nearly perfect telling of the origin story and the year that followed....which would have been the optimum place to start the Bat movies in the 90's. But no, Burton decided to go another route, and the first film (written by a guy who wrote more UNUSED movie scripts than used, which shows you his caliber) sucks because of it. What's that you say Mr. Screenwriter? You're going to make a young version of The Joker kill Batman's parents instead of an anonymous thug? Really?! So you are ditching the original story idea (in Batman's origin story) that Gotham was such a cesspool of crime and filth that a random street thug killed his folks, causing Bruce Wayne to decide to fight crime and lean up his city...and replacing him with a supervillain? My god. Talk about making Bruce's turn into vigilante mean less than nothing. Oh, there's a supervillain responsible for my parents death, I gotta get that guy. Oh, what's that? His face (only?!) was mangled by some acidic green vat that he (his whole body) fell into....making a perfect clown makeup face out of a facial deformity? Oh I see....instead of the real Joker from the comic books who paints his face as a clown because underneath he is a seriously sadistic twisted madman, and like in the TDK where his smile is actually scars that comes from cuts and the wound festers. Nope, I guess Nicholson's Joker is much more interesting to your Mr. Screenwriter.

Sigh.

I hate Tim Burton's Non-Batman films.

Sorry.

LOL

End Rant.

PS. This was not a rant about you Jenisapt Rul...I just used your post sir. Sorry.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2011 - 05:05 PM

[amphibian]

Quote

Also, how do three comments, two of which are nitpicking methinks, make for a deeply flawed film?

You want a point by point analysis of your favorite movie - every step of which you will resist and give nonsensical explanations for? I'll go farther, but I'm not doing the entire movie.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

To cause more carnage? I mean, it ain't rocket science. The joker always has an escape plan. This time it was throwing Rachel out the window to occupy Bats while he ran away. Easy. How does that need explained?

So the Joker gives Batman two bad choices - save Rachel who's falling out the window or save the people at the party/Dent - and doesn't do anything to the people in order to find Dent, when he has those people in his full control now that Batman's gone? Lame. Imagine the headlines in Gotham the next day: "Joke Puts In Appearance At Swanky Party - No One Hurt".

Quote

Also, the Joker's storyline is not the A Line plot...he is the catalyst for Dent..he exists to cause the havoc that will cause Gotham's best guy to go bad...and Harvey's story is the main plotline....which is why the film ends with Batman saving Dent's Rep, and not anything else to do with the Joker (cause he had the Joker beat for the time being).

You have to be joking. Some 80% of the movie is devoted to Joker stuff. The capture of Lau and the Dent storyline are pretty much the sole non-Joker stuff in the movie. The Dent storyline spins very nicely off of the Joker's, but it in no way becomes "main plotline" - despite the Joker's words. All the Joker wants to do is hurt Batman - he's built plans upon plans to do just that, so when the boat plot fails, he moves on to hurting Batman psychologically (he can't do it physically at the moment) and says that Dent was the point all along. Dent wasn't the point. He was Option B for the Joker and Plot B for the movie.

The film ends with Gordon protecting Gotham, Alfred protecting Bruce, Lucius protecting morality and Batman protecting the city and privately, the memory of his friend by taking upon himself the blame for the murders of the gangster and crooked cops.

Nitpicks and completely nonsensical things in the film:

The technological stuff is essentially all nonsensical, but it's Batman. Some level of disbelief suspension is required.

Rachel interrogating Lau? Not her job ambit.

Ramirez being dirty? Que?

The prisoners on the boat speech was awful. Too cliche and delivered by a bad actor.

The fall of Dent occurred too rapidly for my own tastes. I can see how he'd be driven over the edge, but how in the hell does attacking Gordon's family serve anything beyond giving Gary Oldman more time to act? Dent should have gone after the Joker in Arkham.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

[
You're going to make a young version of The Joker kill Batman's parents instead of an anonymous thug? Really?! So you are ditching the original story idea (in Batman's origin story) that Gotham was such a cesspool of crime and filth that a random street thug killed his folks, causing Bruce Wayne to decide to fight crime and lean up his city...and replacing him with a supervillain? My god. Talk about making Bruce's turn into vigilante mean less than nothing. Oh, there's a supervillain responsible for my parents death, I gotta get that guy. Oh, what's that? His face (only?!) was mangled by some acidic green vat that he (his whole body) fell into....making a perfect clown makeup face out of a facial deformity? Oh I see....instead of the real Joker from the comic books who paints his face as a clown because underneath he is a seriously sadistic twisted madman, and like in the TDK where his smile is actually scars that comes from cuts and the wound festers. Nope, I guess Nicholson's Joker is much more interesting to your Mr. Screenwriter.

But at that point the Joker wasn't yet the Joker. He was just a common thug. Also I think you're messing up with the origin stories. In the comic the Joker did actually fall in a pit full of chemicals that bleached his skin, turned his hair green, left him with a permanent red smile and turned him completely mad. It's Ledger's version ( a guy with a painted face and a scar) that while undoubtedly awesome is non-canonical, not Nicholson's

This post has been edited by Bauchelain the Evil: 05 January 2011 - 05:17 PM

[amphibian]

I would also say that nearly every screenwriter turns in more screenplays than are used. It's the nature of the game. Stuff is thrown against a wall - some stick, most don't.

Aptorian* has a great point about the Burton films being the best Batman films we could have expected in the early '90s. At the time, in the public consciousness, Batman was indeed the '60s TV version, despite all of the comic lore. Burton changed all that.

And then Joel Schumacher goddamned near ruined it. Ugh.

Schwartzenegger's Mr. Freeze was the only so bad it's good thing about those films.

*[not liking the name change to Jenisapt Rul and Frook to Aptoran, it's just wrong]

This post has been edited by amphibian: 05 January 2011 - 05:23 PM

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

Quote

Also, how do three comments, two of which are nitpicking methinks, make for a deeply flawed film?

You want a point by point analysis of your favorite movie - every step of which you will resist and give nonsensical explanations for? I'll go farther, but I'm not doing the entire movie.

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

To cause more carnage? I mean, it ain't rocket science. The joker always has an escape plan. This time it was throwing Rachel out the window to occupy Bats while he ran away. Easy. How does that need explained?

So the Joker gives Batman two bad choices - save Rachel who's falling out the window or save the people at the party/Dent - and doesn't do anything to the people in order to find Dent, when he has those people in his full control now that Batman's gone? Lame. Imagine the headlines in Gotham the next day: "Joke Puts In Appearance At Swanky Party - No One Hurt".

Quote

Also, the Joker's storyline is not the A Line plot...he is the catalyst for Dent..he exists to cause the havoc that will cause Gotham's best guy to go bad...and Harvey's story is the main plotline....which is why the film ends with Batman saving Dent's Rep, and not anything else to do with the Joker (cause he had the Joker beat for the time being).

You have to be joking. Some 80% of the movie is devoted to Joker stuff. The capture of Lau and the Dent storyline are pretty much the sole non-Joker stuff in the movie. The Dent storyline spins very nicely off of the Joker's, but it in no way becomes "main plotline" - despite the Joker's words. All the Joker wants to do is hurt Batman - he's built plans upon plans to do just that, so when the boat plot fails, he moves on to hurting Batman psychologically (he can't do it physically at the moment) and says that Dent was the point all along. Dent wasn't the point. He was Option B for the Joker and Plot B for the movie.

The film ends with Gordon protecting Gotham, Alfred protecting Bruce, Lucius protecting morality and Batman protecting the city and privately, the memory of his friend by taking upon himself the blame for the murders of the gangster and crooked cops.

Nitpicks and completely nonsensical things in the film:

The technological stuff is essentially all nonsensical, but it's Batman. Some level of disbelief suspension is required.

Rachel interrogating Lau? Not her job ambit.

Ramirez being dirty? Que?

The prisoners on the boat speech was awful. Too cliche and delivered by a bad actor.

The fall of Dent occurred too rapidly for my own tastes. I can see how he'd be driven over the edge, but how in the hell does attacking Gordon's family serve anything beyond giving Gary Oldman more time to act? Dent should have gone after the Joker in Arkham.

Okay, here we go. LOL.

Deep breath. The Joker was not at that party to kill people. In a film where he killed all the people he wanted to without compunction or hesitation, he doesn't have any reason to stand around NOT killing folk he wants to kill. No, the Joker plays the long game. He wanted to get his hands on Dent, because his plan, from the very beginning was to turn the bright light of the city bad and make it's hero it's villain. That's it. Easy peasy. There is no point in the film where, if the Joker wanted someone dead he didn't do so right away and accomplish it....it's only when he is toying with people and playing his long game that people in his presence survive. In your eyes he spends the time to kill a whole room full of people in a swanky penthouse apartment (while the police are on their way)..and will escape how? No sir. If he wanted those people dead they would have been dead without even knowing he was there.

Not joking about Dent being plotline A. Nolan himself went on record before TDK came out and said that this film was about the downfall of Dent, and that The Joker was the catalyst to that downfall. Sorry dude, but I doubt I'd argue with the director.

The Joker's plan isn't about Batman at all. Sure, Batman is an obstacle and a big one, but his plan was always Dent....I can even quote you the line that makes this clear. Alfred to Bruce: Tells the story of his wartime in Burma finishing with "Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn." To me that's pretty clear. The Joker's intention was about causing as much chaos as he possibly can, and "watching the world burn" because it amused him. Yeah, Batman figures into the whole thing because he is defending Gotham, but Dent had proved he could do it better...by going through the legal system.

The tech stuff, as was the case with BB had to have real world applications as far as Nolan and the producers were concerned. They always said that Fox's designs are based on things that COULD feasibly be done today.

Rachel works for the DA....the DA is entitled by nature of his job to interrogate the guy they will put on the stand (as is always the case)...vis a vis, he has Rachel..his underling does it.

Why does Ramirez being dirty bother you?

Dent DOES go at the Joker. Gordon visits him and doesn't appease him about not saving Rachel...and the second thing he does is go at the Joker in the hospital before it blows up...and the Joker fends off Dents accusations and points him like a weapon at the police. So he goes for Gordon's family. That's like a no-brainer.

None of this is nonsensical though. Not sure why you say that. We are simply debating.

[QuickTidal]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 05 January 2011 - 05:14 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 05 January 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

[
You're going to make a young version of The Joker kill Batman's parents instead of an anonymous thug? Really?! So you are ditching the original story idea (in Batman's origin story) that Gotham was such a cesspool of crime and filth that a random street thug killed his folks, causing Bruce Wayne to decide to fight crime and lean up his city...and replacing him with a supervillain? My god. Talk about making Bruce's turn into vigilante mean less than nothing. Oh, there's a supervillain responsible for my parents death, I gotta get that guy. Oh, what's that? His face (only?!) was mangled by some acidic green vat that he (his whole body) fell into....making a perfect clown makeup face out of a facial deformity? Oh I see....instead of the real Joker from the comic books who paints his face as a clown because underneath he is a seriously sadistic twisted madman, and like in the TDK where his smile is actually scars that comes from cuts and the wound festers. Nope, I guess Nicholson's Joker is much more interesting to your Mr. Screenwriter.

But at that point the Joker wasn't yet the Joker. He was just a common thug. Also I think you're messing up with the origin stories. In the comic the Joker did actually fall in a pit full of chemicals that bleached his skin, turned his hair green, left him with a permanent red smile and turned him completely mad. It's Ledger's version ( a guy with a painted face and a scar) that while undoubtedly awesome is non-canonical, not Nicholson's

Ah, I stand corrected if it exists like that. As I read a number of comics in the 80's where he was not scarred like Nicholson....but I will definitely stand corrected if there is an origin story where he is scarred by a vat.

As far as common thug. No, I think my issue was with the fact that he didn't REMAIN a common thug. In the film he becomes a supervillain.....in the Bat mythos he was always a just common thug who remained that and doesn't show up again. It lent more weight to Bruce's transformation to me is all.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 05 January 2011 - 05:39 PM

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 05 January 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

I would also say that nearly every screenwriter turns in more screenplays than are used. It's the nature of the game. Stuff is thrown against a wall - some stick, most don't.

I will only say this: Goyer (who co-wrote both Nolan films) has had like 90% of his stuff made (TV and Film). Many of the current Hollywood staple screenwriters are hired because of their skill with films completed that are successful. First time flicks by unknowns or independant films really do the whole screenwriter has no previous successes. I would say that a significant amount of the films that come out today are from a pool of fairly successful screenwriters, otherwise producers wouldn't take a chance on them. Producers have a film idea, or have a property to make...they go searching for someone to script it....9 times out of 10 they are likely to choose already popular folks to do it. So folks like Akiva Goldsman, David S. Goyer, Steve Kloves, and their ilk get a lot of the work.

Hamm, who wrote Burton's Batman, only really had one successful screenplay....I'll give you three guesses which. LOL



Also Amph...thanks for the debating! It's way fun.