Batman Continues

There's no other thread about this?

I'd like to see the Joker and the transformation from Dent to Two-Face take place over 2 films. I wouldn't mind a minor villain thrown in the mix but there more than enough material to let those 2 primary bad guys take up 2 films.

As for casting, Denis Leary remains my top choice for the Joker no matter how often that's shouted down. As for Dent, I don't get all the supposrt for either Schriber or Lucas. They both seem a bit bland to me. I remember there was a rumor that Johnny Depp was being sought for the Joker but I think he'd be a more interesting choice for Dent/Two-Face. It's a shame Val Kilmer has the stink of BATMAN FOREVER on him as he'd be a good pick as well.

The one thing I've been saying since BEGINS came out is that Nolan has got to get a second unit guy to handle the action. That was the one weak link in BEGINS that really needs improvement.

I could see Leary as Riddler as well.

I just think he has the lanky build and sinister smile to pull off the Joker. Plus he's about the exact opposite in terms of approach to acting to Bale which the Joker should also embody.

Philip Seymour Hoffman could be a cool Penguin.

That reminds me, there should be something for Willem Dafoe.

All the guys mentioned for Harvey Dent are wobbly choices for Two Face (though who knows what sort of take on Two Face Nolan would come up with). Guy Pearce might be interesting.

So agreed. In the supplements they had quite a large segment about how they'd spent a huge amount of time creating a relatively new fighting style for Batman, and yet we never really get to SEE said style clearly. It was frustrating watching it originally, but after seeing how much effort they'd gone to, it's doubly as frustrating, now.

I think one of my biggest hopes for the next Batman film is for there to be no love interest. Give Batman a movie just to be and develop as Batman, without him having to reveal his identity. Or, at the very least, give the interest a minor role for the next film, something that might build into a relationship serious enough for a reveal, in a later film. Make it earned, instead of an obligatory plot device...

For some reason, I picture Edward Norton as Two-Face.

Got to get the female audience in the seats though.

I am a female and I don't need "romance" to drag me into the theater - I just need a compelling story and ( in the case of Batman ) some good action sequences. I don't think I'm in a huge minority on that one.

Speaking strictly about BB, most of the women I discussed it with keyed in on Bruce's transformation into Batman and how he used Bruce as a mask... nary a word about Katie/Rachel.

I agree about Guy Pearce playing Two-Face. I think he'd be great. I also liked the Sean Penn as the joker rumor, as impossible as it may be.

As the origin and backstory was the best element of Batman Begins, and as the movie went off the rails (literally) once that was complete, I think a sequel is automatically starting from a weakened position - the only truly interesting Batman story has now been told. All that's left is to rearrange the same characters and superheroics we've seen before.

I hope Nolan's action-directing chops have improved ten-fold since the first film. I just didn't find that much energy or appealing style in the action scenes in BEGINS. Nolan has a beautiful eye for setting drama, but I barely noticed it during the second half of the film.

It'd be nice to see some character development in ol' Bats for the second film. As in he actually becomes a better detective this time out. I agree that the first half of Batman Begins is much stronger. If the sequels had more of that feel (with more sleuthing and better shot action sequences) I'd probably dig it.

I hope Nolan makes the villains more authentic than the previous screen versions. How about a Joker that's actually dangerous and scary, not hammy and easy to kill? Whoever plays Two-Face is gonna have to be great. That's a challenging role.

Quit trying to make everything realistic and plausible, and actually dwell this time on the death of his parents and the decisions that their death is making him make.

I completely agree. Get me some good character growth and a good story and I'm there. Ah, also I'd like some more Christian Bale without his shirt on scenes. I could care less about the "romance".

Katie Holmes was a bit of a tool in the movie, so I don't even think girls wanted to be her. The frickin' wonky smile just annoyed me. And how the hell does some girl so obviously about 22 be a well-seasoned Assistant DA? If they had had a 22 year old actress that seemed really mature and sure of herself it would have been interesting. Katie just came off as some school leaver pretending to play adult, but not understanding what that means. (Why don't we have any actresses that are young and can hold themselves like Lauren Bacall did when she was 19/20? Nowadays they all seem to be 22-year-old little girls dressing up and playing adult. I guess that's for another thread.)

But in the end, it absolutely was Bruce's transformation and his uncomfortableness in pretending to be a shit-head playboy that was far more interesting.

I believe the studio gave Nolan carte blanche, and the only thing he absolutely had to deliver was a PG-13 rating and a love interest. But I can't for the life of me remember where I've read that.

I really want the Scarecrow back.

From what I've heard, Nolan wants to make the movie for realistic and darker! Hes probably gonna get away with it, as WB has the trend of putting guidlines on a film then letting you have your way with the sequels (see prevoius Batman franchine, and The Matrix Trilogy). If this were to be true, then we wouldn't have to worry about love interests and cliche plot devices. The fact that we already got another writer in on this is already alleaving some doubts on the script. Still I'm sure it'll be PG-13 again.

You'd be ignoring a good sixty years of source material then. Even if we were to just take stories starting in the 80's we could create a few movies. There is Batman's rise from urban legend to a semi sanctioned hero working with Jim Gordon. There is of course the friendship/perceived betrayal storyline with Harvey Dent. There is the fraying of Gordon/Batman's relationship as Batman mustexert more force against a rising group of more violent villians. These are all year two-ish type storylines.

Can't forget the Robin storyline(s). It creates an interesting dynamic because the Robin characters become part of a father/son relationship with Batman. These stories have created some fantastic and important parts of the Batman history.

The Bane "Breaking of the Bat" storyline is also interesting. Bane essentially releases every villain that Batman has spent years capturing. Batman has to face these foes while dealing with Bane....

I could blather on...but there are a lot of interesting stories to tell. The Batman history is just as rich as Spider-Man.

I agree with the sentiment of not making a love interest the vital part of the film. I also agree with Batman not having to unmask himself to anyone. I'd also like to see them avoid the always annoying "bad guy frames the good guy device".

As for the action...you guys are right...Nolan needs help. If he can get someone like Alexander Witt (Ridley Scott's 2nd Unit Guy) he would do well.

Why are people still shocked that a Batman movie is going to be PG-13? It's fucking BATMAN. He's a superhero for kids!

What would people prefer? A hard R rating? It's Batman and, if the source material is truly the vast catalogue of comics, there is nothing that could be depicted on screen that would merit giving the sequel anything other than a PG-13 rating. In fact, the only thing that I can think of that even approximates an R is Moore's Killing Joke (Gordon in trippy S/M gear being forced to look at the Joker's photos of Barbara). Jeez, it's not like an R rating is some guarantee of quality. Wait, didn't we have this same discussion in the "Superman Returns" threads?

And the Ghost Rider thread, and the Punisher thread, and the Spider-Man thread, and the Power Pack thread, and the Iron Fist thread, and the Hellboy thread, and the Forbush Man thread, and the..

I just said he was obligated to deliver a PG-13 movie, not that an R-rated movie would automatically be better.

Edit: Or that he even wanted to deliver an R-rated movie in the first place.

That's cool, but since you are enlightened enough to be posting here you're not quite the demographic I was thinking of. I'm confident that the Peter Parker/Mary Jane relationship was partially responsible for the huge box office of the Spiderman films.

it would be nice to have a decent female character in the next one.

I wish they'd switch directors.

at least for the action scenes.

They exact same thoughts went through my head as well... those poor unloved stunt coordinators.

I'm with what Dan Whitehead says above, they really kinda blew it for me with the 3rd act of Batman Benign. I don't see why Batman couldn't BEGIN without all the supervilliany. Let that come later. I'm actually not a huge fan of The Long Halloween, but if they had stripped away all the rogues-gallery cameos and just filmed the story of Bats on one side and Harvey Dent/Jim Gordon on the other trying to solve a string of mob murders, I think we could've had a really great and more importantly a very DIFFERENT "superhero" movie.

I think if you deal with Harvey Dent in the second one, you definitely have the potential to make a movie that's not going to fall foul of the third act pitfalls that Batman Begins suffered from.

But it would be SE7EN, with Batman. That was the great thing about TLH, not only was it an amazing detective story, but it also told a very good story about the rogue's gallery taking over the city, which was an essential part of it.

What I missed most in BB was the loss of the parents, and the psychological effects behind that. If you spend more time in your movie showing how they ordered parts of the cowl in bulk than the effects of Bruce's parents dying, there's something wrong.

Christian Bale sans shirt definitely wouldn't hurt. As to younger actresses, I have to say you've stumped me. I started thinking about it and the first one that popped to mind was Maggie Gyllenhaal... but she was still older than Bacall when she started taking on meatier roles. Bacall really is one of a kind. Perhaps it's because we're more focused on appearing younger, in today's culture? But yes, could be discussion for a different thread.

I can see your point, but Mary Jane is integral, and pretty much always has been, to the Peter Parker/Spiderman story. I've not followed the Spiderman comics much, but it seems that it's near impossible to discuss Spiderman without her. Like Lois Lane to Superman/Clark Kent. In that regard it makes much more sense for her story to be there. And if I'm remembering correctly ( which I may well not be ), Peter didn't reveal himself as Spiderman to MJ in the first movie? Correct me if I'm wrong... most of my DVDs are packed up in preparation of a move so I can't go recheck this.

The only times I've felt a love interest for Batman, movie-wise, worked was in "Mask of the Phantasm", if you'll let me include that, and with Catwoman in "Batman Returns".

But, if a love interest is absolutely needed, then make it a slow build, with no reveal.

I believe the word "duality" was thrown around as a theme for the sequel, and though the comics have thoroughly beaten that horse to death, I would like to see the obsessive, and vaguely schizoid Bruce Wayne rear his head.

Talia would be the only love interest of Batman's I would be interested in seeing, but I doubt we see it with them already doing R'has.

Paul Bettany has always been in my mind for Joker for some reason...he's got the frame and he's a damn good actor. Don't know if he can do the voice though.

One would think Bruce's playboy lifestyle, put-on or not, would suggest that he have some arm candy or casual relationship but not much more serious than that. I thought it'd be funny if he was banging his accountant, who just so happens to be Monica Belucci.

Whoever plays Two Face has to be staggeringly man-handsome in order to juxtapose the hideousness of the scarring on his face. Casting a Danny Trejo type in the looks department as Harvey Dent doesn't work. Sean Penn as the Joker may cause me to not see the sequel if he ends up as the Joker. But that's neither here nor there.

Not many specifics from what I'd like out of the next one(s), save for the basic:

1) NO @$#!@# love interest (especially one played by Katie Holmes)

2) Focus on Batman, you know, being a DETECTIVE for once and solving crime(s). This has yet to really be done in any live action Batflick and is part of what the animated series still owns over any of the films.

The problem is, being a Hollywood (WB, no less) tent-pole event franchise I know it's next to impossible to have even these simple things come through. Even with someone like Nolan at the helm, the film will likely still focus more on set-pieces than a detective story arc... and there will always likely be some goddamn stupid, contrived, shoe-horned and ultimately useless love interested involved. So fuck it.

The geek in me wouldn't mind Silver St. Cloud, but these days you simply can't have that name w/out being a pornstar.

That's what I meant, I think "Seven, with Batman" would be a nice change of pace. As has been noted by those more veteran and august than I, the Detective is a side of Bats that has been neglected by movies. And my issue with TLH is similar to my problems with BB - he shouldn't HAVE a rogues' gallery yet. TLH was supposed to be early in his "career," but he's already met, defeated and locked up most of the villians who will, over time, become his chief nemesisisisises? I thought that Bruce Wayne's decision to dress up and fight crime, his legend, is part of what draws the crazy supervillians to Gotham, and that feeds both Bats' motivation and his guilt complex. So how can all that be set up in like, the first 14 months of his career?

From the general public's perspective, however, there probably isn't a hell of alot of interest in Batman's keen investigative abilities. They're satisfied with seeing a guy in a scary black costume drive around in a cool car, use neat gadgets, and kung fu the crap out of freakish villains (sort of James Bond with Gothic trappings, no?). Thus, they're going to get bored if treated to two hours of a Batman procedural mystery. For that reason-- and this was generally the case in The Animated Series, as well-- the Darkknight Detective element of the persona is usually limited to Batman finding some clue (a hair, a microchip, a shred of paper, etc), feeding it in to the Bat-puter, and being informed that said clue is only manufactured/produced in one place in Gotham (which conveniently happens to be the place that the Joker/Riddler/Clayface used to work).

I wouldn't mind seeing a true Batman detective story, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see it up on the big screen.

I would surmise that his detective skills would be explored in the 3rd film. And to whomever said that they should go with a different director? Just stop.

Why? Nolan may have seemed a great choice before BB, but he sure as hell isn't after.

Sure. Its not like the guy made arguably the most critically acclaimed "Comic-Book" movie, nor the most acclaimed to the general public. The guy who kicked new life into a long thought dead franchise. Sure. Get rid of him. Yeah.

What's the deal? Whether it was critically acclaimed or brought the franchise back (which really, wasn't hard) doesn't mean shit to me. I'm just exercising my opinion, which is that I don't think Nolan is right for Batman. If he makes a great second movie, fine, but I'm not banking on it after the first one.

Christ, if you really think that it's some universal opinion that BATMAN BEGINS is amazing - which from your posts sounds about right - you should check the post-release thread, then wake up and smell the Bat-coffee.

Charlie, did you even see Batman Begins? Half of the scenes in the movie were about his parents and their death and legacy.

Yes, I saw it. No, I didn't feel that way because it was all dealt with in such a poor way, with no weight or emotional grounding whatsoever.

Yeah, and read the same 10 people going on and on about how they could have done a better job than a professional and critically acclaimed director. This place has turned into the TalkBack.

I'd prefer to get the opinion of a family member, my kids, cousins, friends and co-workers. I'd trust their thoughts over someone who spends their entire day going on about how Chris Nolan is incapable of making a fucking movie.