The Dark Knight Rises - Pre-release Discussion [** NO SPOILERS PLEASE **]

PhiloCypher

I keep hearing Joseph Gordon Levitt name being tossed around by fanboys for the riddler personally I'd prefer him to play the Joker in a future Bats film should the next director decide to stick with Nolans continuity rather then reboot , by then given film development cycles enough time will have passed for it not to seem Goulish and a cash in .

paddyismaddy

my problem with levitt (thats the fella from 3rd rock from the sun and inception right) he has teenage face and looks too young to play a credible villian

PhiloCypher

paddyismaddy wrote: »

my problem with levitt (thats the fella from 3rd rock from the sun and inception right) he has teenage face and looks too young to play a credible villian

I'm sure some people had trouble seeing Heath as a villain being that pre Dark Knight he was something of a gay Icon and all round hearththrob , given that it would be at least 5 years before Bat 4 Levitt would have plenty of time to age disgracefully

Handsome Bob

Playboy wrote: »

? Just a little over sensitive are we? I'm certainly not trolling, how about you address the point in my post instead of avoiding it. Your post was an incoherant rant that didnt make sense... i really dont know where you came up with that theory of yours but its wrong.

The word miniscule was the wrong word to choose, but I still think fans of Batman played a bigger role in the box office numbers than the average public. If the average public played as big a role as you are suggesting we'd be talking Avatar numbers but we're not are we?

Also, I was hardly ranting, but rather slightly agitated by your aggressive style of posting. Alas, if I am wrong I can accept that.

PhiloCypher

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Also, I was hardly ranting, but rather slightly agitated by your aggressive style of posting. Alas, if I am wrong I can accept that.

He wasn't trolling you believe me I've been on other poorly modded sites I know what a troll attempt looks like and that wasn't one , trolls try and cause the maximum amount of aggravation for the minimum effort and rarely attempt to make salient points as Playboy did in his post , his "you spend too much time here" was a light hearted ribbing at best .

Now back to Batman .............

DirkVoodoo

I think the numbers support playboys stance, the Dark Knight's opening take was about 30% of it's total haul in the USA. If repeated viewings were the major source of income, you would expect this to be much lower really. I think the success of the first movie coupled with the tragic death of Heath Ledger were the real reasons people wanted to see this movie. It was a super hero movie that didn't alienate casual movie-goers.

Also, a poll of 8,427 users of box office mojo (a reasonable sample I think) shows the following:

38.7% Twice would be nice. 21.3% Once and I'm done. 19.0% Three times the charm. 17.2% Four times, maybe more. 3.4% No interest in seeing it at all. 0.5% Walked out during the first time.

So it seems a good number of people want to see it more than four times, but it's nowhere near the majority. The movies publicity, wide release and unobstructed opening weekend (hellboy 2 and step brothers were the only things released close to it) are the major factors, but repeat viewings did push it from amazing haul at the box office to record breaking.

Handsome Bob

Okay lads, I was wrong, I suppose I just wasn't looking at the numbers within a broad enough context.

30H!3

Can't wait for this.....2 years though ffs

I see Cillian Murphy isn't in the credits on imdb so probably no scarecrow in this one, although he only had a small part in Dark Knight he was a good villian in the 1st movie.

Just see Leonardo di Caprio is rumored for the riddler too, wouldn't surprise me , Nolan likes to latch onto actors and re-use them (Bale/Caine/Murphy/etc)

PhiloCypher

30H!3 wrote: »

Can't wait for this.....2 years though ffs

I see Cillian Murphy isn't in the credits on imdb so probably no scarecrow in this one, although he only had a small part in Dark Knight he was a good villian in the 1st movie.

Just see Leonardo di Caprio is rumored for the riddler too, wouldn't surprise me , Nolan likes to latch onto actors and re-use them (Bale/Caine/Murphy/etc)

Personally I'd prefer if he didn't try and shoehorn every actor he has ever worked with into every movie he makes without just cause , as much as I enjoy Cillian Murphy's work its questionable whether it was necessary to have him in Dark Knight .

Handsome Bob

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer if he didn't try and shoehorn every actor he has ever worked with into every movie he makes without just cause , as much as I enjoy Cillian Murphy's work its questionable whether it was necessary to have him in Dark Knight .

I suppose Nolan brought him in because Scarecrow was a loose end and still at large from BB.

nosco

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer if he didn't try and shoehorn every actor he has ever worked with into every movie he makes without just cause , as much as I enjoy Cillian Murphy's work its questionable whether it was necessary to have him in Dark Knight .

i think it just seemed odd because he's an actor people know but yet had such a tiny role. When you think about it though, there really is nothing wrong with it.

TenLeftFingers

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Ice Man! Have you all got amnesia? He wasn't just a great character, but some great lines like "the ice man cometh!" and "I feel a freeze coming!" - a subtle reference to his very own character.

Seriously, I think I need two years to get my obsession of Legers Joker out of my idea of the perfect villain anyway. I'm sure Nolan will keep the character grounded and believable regardless of who he has. I don't think Two Face was an option. He wasn't really menacing or interesting enough to hold a movie on his own.

DirkVoodoo

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

I can't believe nobody has mentioned Arnold Schwarzenegger as the Ice Man! Have you all got amnesia? He wasn't just a great character, but some great lines like "the ice man cometh!" and "I feel a freeze coming!" - a subtle reference to his very own character.

Seriously, I think I need two years to get my obsession of Legers Joker out of my idea of the perfect villain anyway. I'm sure Nolan will keep the character grounded and believable regardless of who he has. I don't think Two Face was an option. He wasn't really menacing or interesting enough to hold a movie on his own.

You know what, I wouldn't mind seeing Nolan return to a little more of the comic book Gotham of the first movie. It was one of my gripes with TDK, it was basically Batman comes to Chicago. Returning to the animated series, I think Nolan could do quite a believable Mr.Freeze (although please ditch the Fries surname). This would probably have been doable post BB, but TDK has removed an awful lot of the more "colourful" villains, leaving us with mostly mobsters and the riddler.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the villain announcements anyway.

TonyD79

Nolan has already said it wont be Mr.Freeze and he wont recast the Joker. I imagine the Joker would have made an appearance in this film in some shape of form if Ledger had not died. Also he said the Penguin wouldnt work in his version of Batman but then again me may make some appearance. I think the Riddler is more or else a cert cause he hasnt dimissed all the speculation.

As for saying there was no point in the Scarcrow being in the Dark Knight I think it was well played by Nolan was great continuation from the first film of the trilogy.

fluke

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer if he didn't try and shoehorn every actor he has ever worked with into every movie he makes without just cause , as much as I enjoy Cillian Murphy's work its questionable whether it was necessary to have him in Dark Knight .

I think as LZ5by5 said it was a loose end that (maybe) needed tying up. That cameo also served as a link between the the first and second movie, as an introductory Batman fight scene, and also to serve as a display of how the Gotham gallery of Villains could come and go in Nolan's Batman universe. Remember Zzasz appears in the first one briefly!

PhiloCypher

fluke wrote: »

I think as LZ5by5 said it was a loose end that (maybe) needed tying up. That cameo also served as a link between the the first and second movie, as an introductory Batman fight scene, and also to serve as a display of how the Gotham gallery of Villains could come and go in Nolan's Batman universe. Remember Zzasz appears in the first one briefly!

Yeh thats fair enough, like someone and funnily enough something I had said in the Inception thread it was probably the fact that such a well known actor would accept such a small role that threw me .

TenLeftFingers

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Yeh thats fair enough, like someone and funnily enough something I had said in the Inception thread it was probably the fact that such a well known actor would accept such a small role that threw me .

I loved that. You can usually safely assume that in the movies, the bigger names make it to the end and the others are up for the cross-fire, ala StarTrek TOS. Having assumptions like that dismissed in the movie really makes it more enjoyable.

Sad Professor

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

You know what, I wouldn't mind seeing Nolan return to a little more of the comic book Gotham of the first movie. It was one of my gripes with TDK, it was basically Batman comes to Chicago.

This was actually the thing I really loved about TDK. I didn't like the fake looking sets in Begins. I get the impression Nolan wasn't happy with them either. I remember him in interviews saying he felt more free in TDK to make the kind of film he wanted to make and that meant using real locations as much as possible.

Turtyturd

Sad Professor wrote: »

This was actually the thing I really loved about TDK. I didn't like the fake looking sets in Begins. I get the impression Nolan wasn't happy with them either. I remember him in interviews saying he felt more free in TDK to make the kind of film he wanted to make and that meant using real locations as much as possible.

But it takes away from any kind of continuity. There is nothing to say that the city in The Dark Knight was Gotham City. In Batman Begins the skyline was dominated by Wayne Tower and the city rail line, which now seems like nothing more than way for Ra's Al Ghul to infect the city.

The Narrows perfectly showed how bad life in Gotham was supposed to be. It was basically a shanty town which should have been over run with escaped psychopaths but instead it had been completely eradicated by the time the second movie came around and Gotham was nothing more than another American city.

Sad Professor

Turtyturd wrote: »

But it takes away from any kind of continuity.

Perhaps, but I don't think Nolan was overly concerned about visual continuity with the first film. As with Burton, I think Nolan was compromised the first time round and was only interested in doing a sequel if it meant he could use the increased creative control to do something closer to his own heart and his own personal vision of Batman and Gotham City. He obviously doesn't want to spend the rest of his career making sequels, so with TDK he was more interested in making a different film that was its own entity without being shackled to what he had done the first time. I think the finished result is all the better for this.

DirkVoodoo

fluke wrote: »

I think as LZ5by5 said it was a loose end that (maybe) needed tying up. That cameo also served as a link between the the first and second movie, as an introductory Batman fight scene, and also to serve as a display of how the Gotham gallery of Villains could come and go in Nolan's Batman universe. Remember Zzasz appears in the first one briefly!

Yep, he is right there. Remember the end of BB: "The Narrows is lost and we still haven't rounded up Crane or half the inmates from Arkham"

"We will, we can bring Gotham back"

What better way to link the two movies than taking Crane down (as well as the Dark Knight returns homage to the sons of the batman, nice).

fluke

I watched the DC animated movie Batman: Under the Red Hood last night and I thought it was pretty good. It was a much better effort than Public Enemies or the Gotham Knight DVD, and definitely better than The Brave and the Bold. I might be in the minority here but I was glad to hear Batman been voiced by someone other than Kevin Conroy, just because it was a change and Bruce Greenwood did a fine job. It was excellent and should be caught by anyone who liked the original animated series of the 90's and Batman in general.

Anyhow it got me thinking that when the third Batman movie is done (and as such when Nolan is done with Batman) that with the right approach a Robin angle could be done but maybe with the introduction of Jason Todd (as opposed to Dick Grayson) in the fourth, and maybe in a fifth movie the character's fate changes as it were. Maybe I'm getting too ahead of myself but I just see it as an approach that could be taken after Batman 3.

TonyD79

Id imagine none of the same cast wuld agree to come back for a fourth film unless Nolan was to do a uturn. Would much rather Batmans next outing to be in a Justice League film but I would be weary of it considering they were gonna get the cast of Gossip girls for the cancelled project last year.

fluke

TonyD79 wrote: »

Id imagine none of the same cast wuld agree to come back for a fourth film unless Nolan was to do a uturn. Would much rather Batmans next outing to be in a Justice League film but I would be weary of it considering they were gonna get the cast of Gossip girls for the cancelled project last year.

I wouldn't expect the same cast to return actually. It could be a fresh start once Batman 3 is done.

By the way by start I don't mean reboot (yuck!). I just think a different director could then bring in characters which Nolan's grounded Batman world hasn't allowed for.

BlitzKrieg

By the way by start I don't mean reboot (yuck!). I just think a different director could then bring in characters which Nolan's grounded Batman world hasn't allowed for.

just as schumacher did with burton's batman.


you know

for kids

fluke

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

just as schumacher did with burton's batman.


you know

for kids

ha ha what's the worst that could happen?


add in a bat credit card here, some bat nipples there... :pac:

Sad Professor

These things seem to go in cycles. I suspect there's going to be backlash against Nolan's serious take on Batman after the next film, which will result in the franchise taking a lighter turn again. While I prefer Nolan's version, there's definitely room for such an interpretation but it would have to be careful to avoid the pitfalls that Schumacher fell into.

I reckon any post-Nolan film will basically amount to another reboot anyway. Nolan has already stated this next film will be his last and the cast are unlikely to sign up to any more without him. I'm hoping Nolan will really take advantage of this fact by not being afraid to bring things to a conclusion. This is what he has suggested in interviews and I hope he really means it.

BlitzKrieg

I watched the DC animated movie Batman: Under the Red Hood last night and I thought it was pretty good. It was a much better effort than Public Enemies or the Gotham Knight DVD, and definitely better than The Brave and the Bold. I might be in the minority here but I was glad to hear Batman been voiced by someone other than Kevin Conroy, just because it was a change and Bruce Greenwood did a fine job. It was excellent and should be caught by anyone who liked the original animated series of the 90's and Batman in general.

actually just watched that tonight, Bruce Greenwood was fine, but it felt like he was just immitating kevin conroy most of the time then anything else.

John Dimaggio as the joker was another issue, it was a very different approach that I initially hated (and his laugh didnt match his talking voice, almost as if they got hamill in just for the laugh) but it began warming up to me in the last scene. Mostly cause it was such a different approach to all the other jokers we've had.

But yeah it was a nice compression of the red hood storyline, liked most of it, only thing I didnt like was how they did black mask (who at this point of the comic series was a serious badass that they just briefly alluded to) and they really played him off as comic foil when in the rogue gallary

he's the only one to match the joker in killing a robin, though like joker they cope out and bring her back later

shockingly 'The batman' animated series (the newish one) which was for the most part awful actually had the best black mask.

fluke

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

actually just watched that tonight, Bruce Greenwood was fine, but it felt like he was just immitating kevin conroy most of the time then anything else.

John Dimaggio as the joker was another issue, it was a very different approach that I initially hated (and his laugh didnt match his talking voice, almost as if they got hamill in just for the laugh) but it began warming up to me in the last scene. Mostly cause it was such a different approach to all the other jokers we've had.

But yeah it was a nice compression of the red hood storyline, liked most of it, only thing I didnt like was how they did black mask (who at this point of the comic series was a serious badass that they just briefly alluded to) and they really played him off as comic foil when in the rogue gallary

he's the only one to match the joker in killing a robin, though like joker they cope out and bring her back later

shockingly 'The batman' animated series (the newish one) which was for the most part awful actually had the best black mask.

I don't really know a whole lot about the Black Mask generally but i gather he's a lot more sinister than portrayed here - in this he just seemed to be around just to be the main mob boss who happens to punch people a lot!

Even though it was John Di Maggio who did the voice of the Joker I kept hearing George Segal of Just Shoot Me fame...

Generally I really liked it, but I wish it had been longer and had more Bruce Wayne scenes to round it out as a film.

Dermighty

Lurching wrote: »

Id like to see what they'd do with a penguin character now..

Philip Seymour Hoffman as the penguin