RE: Batman after Nolan (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films



Message


Sotto Voce -> RE: Batman after Nolan (4/3/2012 11:02:39 AM)

Thinking about what I would like to see, the keyword would be 'gothic'. You can do the more far-fetched stuff, even a character like Clayface, and it doesn't have to be silly if the whole thing has a gothic feel.




bondfan -> RE: Batman after Nolan (4/3/2012 8:01:01 PM)

I think theres nothing left after TDNR it will be a outstanding trilogy




Sutty -> RE: Batman after Nolan (4/3/2012 8:15:05 PM)

Since its unlikely that anyone will top Nolans trilogy in the Batman Universe in terms of character/story/depth, then why not go another way entirely?

How about Batman vs Predator? Batman vs Wolverine?

I know that studio rights can cause problems but given the money that could be recouped then I reckon it could be done.

There were some awesome comics made in the 90's about such match ups. Imagine that on the cinema screen!!




jobloffski -> RE: Batman after Nolan (4/3/2012 11:07:43 PM)

The versus films tend to happen when people have no ideas left.

I suggest evolution. Not Revolution.

Nolan will have put together the building blocks of the character, his mission, his morals, the fact that no matter what, he will find a way, and returning from injuries that would ruin other men for life, and the ending of Batman as a legend and beginning of him as Gotham's fully fledged caped crusader.

The 'psychological journey' of Batman ends with TDKR. The character is completed. detective, brawler, patient hunter, fighting seemingly invincible foes. Batman will endure, because he will always have options about how he approaches his work. But the films can continue to put him through a different sort of hell, every single time,

Reboot as if it's essentially a 'parallel' continuation of Nolan's work, as if the new actors had been going through the events of the first three films at the same time. The first scenes of the fourth film familiar enough stylistically to where Nolan left it to smooth the transition and let us see the new faces. The incident that kicks off the main plot of the film marks a gradual shift in film style, marginally different from one scene to the next, so the change towards the new visual style is almost too gradual to notice until at some point, a different one for all viewers, realisation strikes that the film is 'evolving' before our eyes.

The nature of the threat decides what the look of the film will settle down to become, and this can easily be gotten away with because Nolan will have done three differently styled films that suit the threat/tone of the respective films.

Nolan has established the precedent that it is possible to make a series of films where the look of the film can change from film to film and a mystery is created each time as to what each film will feel like. That can encompass the gothic look of that suits a particular story, something more realistic, or whatever, for the same reason.

WB would be crazy to squander the freedom earned by Nolan to expect the audience to accept and expect a different type of film every time. You simply cannot buy this freedom to surprise people every time, but Nolan has earned it for WB. Keep this as a touchstone to keep the prominence of Batman movies as event movies of the kind nobody else can live up to. Keep the films smelling fresh by never letting the dust settle on a style. And let the freedom with the style be rooted in keeping the characters solid and responding as someone actually would in reality, to whatever occurs in a particular film, while the things that happen don;t HAVE to be possible in actual reality. Let the directors queue up for their chance to helm the most risk taking, yet guaranteed box office behemoth. They'll wait.

Start pretty much as a slight development of the 'real world' (ish) Batmans from Nolan, escalate the scope of what can happen just a little higher. Keep the 'trope' of Batman not really knowing what he is up against at first and having to adapt and learn and regroup, and then triumph.

From film to film up the stakes. In terms of how the bad guys will behave. Eventually you can have your supernatural or magical elements. All you have to do is have them introduced in a way that has Batman seek to investigate knowing only what he has learned so far, until the new threat, for as long as possible is something Batman encounters for the first time, has to assess...for example...This can't be real, it has to be some kind of trick....But the world's greatest detective knows full well, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (etc).

Supernatural or magical elements apparently entering the equation, then take things a step further. After being dismissed as tricks and theatricality (his turf) things that cannot be explained by any other conclusion than 'this is really happening' transpire,after well enough made lead in scenes so that the audience doubt with Batman, dismiss the impossible with Batman, then learn with Batman:

The word impossible no longer applies, Master Bruce. If you persist in discounting even the thought that this may in fact be the truth of what is going in Gotham, you will always be one step behind. And that's not where Batman is supposed to be

It's just a little,,,

Hard to believe?

Just a little.

You're the one who's always talking about leaps of faith, though aren't you, sir?

Faith in me. Faith in you, Alfred...Gordon, Gotham...not...

Say the word, sir.

You say it.

It's just a word...Faith. In...

Magic.


I wrote that with Bale and Caine in mind, but change the actors, the relationship stays the same. Keep what keeps the soul of the films together. Everything else is negotiable. Every single time a new Batman film comes out, nobody knows precisely to expect, but will get enough of what they know to keep the faith with whatever decisions have been made.

And this gives a further freedom films don;t normally have. The freedom to fail. Because even if one film isn't quite 'right' establishing the 'build the story from the ground up every time' principle means the next one will once again be a different kind of Batman film.

Three, maybe four years after Nolan, and every three, maybe four years after that...Batman is Reborn. No need churn em out any faster. What's worth waiting for is worth waiting for.







OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:21:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Since its unlikely that anyone will top Nolans trilogy in the Batman Universe in terms of character/story/depth, then why not go another way entirely?

How about Batman vs Predator? Batman vs Wolverine?

I know that studio rights can cause problems but given the money that could be recouped then I reckon it could be done.

There were some awesome comics made in the 90's about such match ups. Imagine that on the cinema screen!!


Yeah,I mean AVP and AVPR were great films..............[8|]




Sutty -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:48:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Since its unlikely that anyone will top Nolans trilogy in the Batman Universe in terms of character/story/depth, then why not go another way entirely?

How about Batman vs Predator? Batman vs Wolverine?

I know that studio rights can cause problems but given the money that could be recouped then I reckon it could be done.

There were some awesome comics made in the 90's about such match ups. Imagine that on the cinema screen!!


Yeah,I mean AVP and AVPR were great films..............[8|]


So where one has failed others cannot try? I think any fan of either franchise was ecited by the initial prospect of bringing the two together. The idea is sound, it was the execution that was the problem.

Anyway, I've read what Joblofski had to say and I change my mind! [:D]




Discodez -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 10:48:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

No more movies which are "dark" and have Batman crying mummy and daddy. A super fun movie series is what we need!



Yes a bit of light relief is what's needed, how about Jim Carey as the Rid... oh wait. 




bondfan -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 11:43:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

Since its unlikely that anyone will top Nolans trilogy in the Batman Universe in terms of character/story/depth, then why not go another way entirely?

How about Batman vs Predator? Batman vs Wolverine?

I know that studio rights can cause problems but given the money that could be recouped then I reckon it could be done.

There were some awesome comics made in the 90's about such match ups. Imagine that on the cinema screen!!



We dont need too many batman films and as for batman vs predator are we running out of idea's ??




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 12:28:41 PM)

No re-boot needed, just continuation. As I say, get Fincher on the blower and make it happen, personally, I'd leave it where it is on TDKR and not do anymore, you can't better Nolan but appreciate that's not realisitc in the film world, so if it must be continued, get Fincher in and make a Seven esque Batman (rain, dark, no hope on the streets etc.)
 
Failing that, give everyone a break and get Nolan et al back in six or seven years and make a Black Mask centred story with a 40+ Batman.




Rob -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 12:30:28 PM)

I'm really surprised that some people want WB to leave Batman alone after Nolan leaves. I adore the first 2 films and have high hopes for the final part but Batman is bigger than Nolan, Bale, Burton et al. It's a character that thrives on re-invention and for me there is so much of the Batman cannon that I'd be eager to see on the big screen. Bring in Nightwing, Robin (whichever incarnation) and flesh out the supporting cast. There's just so much that can be done with the character.

If the stories are good then why not?




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 12:36:58 PM)

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 12:55:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:18:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]


Would Fincher bring a new style to Batman that nolan hasnt?
Personally I've felt the Burtons batman films never reached a climax.Maybe bring Keaton back to set-up a take on The Dark Knight Returns.
But altogether I cant see a re-telling of batman for a few years yet.




Sotto Voce -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:21:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

The versus films tend to happen when people have no ideas left.

I suggest evolution. Not Revolution.

Nolan will have put together the building blocks of the character, his mission, his morals, the fact that no matter what, he will find a way, and returning from injuries that would ruin other men for life, and the ending of Batman as a legend and beginning of him as Gotham's fully fledged caped crusader.

The 'psychological journey' of Batman ends with TDKR. The character is completed. detective, brawler, patient hunter, fighting seemingly invincible foes. Batman will endure, because he will always have options about how he approaches his work. But the films can continue to put him through a different sort of hell, every single time,

Reboot as if it's essentially a 'parallel' continuation of Nolan's work, as if the new actors had been going through the events of the first three films at the same time. The first scenes of the fourth film familiar enough stylistically to where Nolan left it to smooth the transition and let us see the new faces. The incident that kicks off the main plot of the film marks a gradual shift in film style, marginally different from one scene to the next, so the change towards the new visual style is almost too gradual to notice until at some point, a different one for all viewers, realisation strikes that the film is 'evolving' before our eyes.

The nature of the threat decides what the look of the film will settle down to become, and this can easily be gotten away with because Nolan will have done three differently styled films that suit the threat/tone of the respective films.

Nolan has established the precedent that it is possible to make a series of films where the look of the film can change from film to film and a mystery is created each time as to what each film will feel like. That can encompass the gothic look of that suits a particular story, something more realistic, or whatever, for the same reason.

WB would be crazy to squander the freedom earned by Nolan to expect the audience to accept and expect a different type of film every time. You simply cannot buy this freedom to surprise people every time, but Nolan has earned it for WB. Keep this as a touchstone to keep the prominence of Batman movies as event movies of the kind nobody else can live up to. Keep the films smelling fresh by never letting the dust settle on a style. And let the freedom with the style be rooted in keeping the characters solid and responding as someone actually would in reality, to whatever occurs in a particular film, while the things that happen don;t HAVE to be possible in actual reality. Let the directors queue up for their chance to helm the most risk taking, yet guaranteed box office behemoth. They'll wait.

Start pretty much as a slight development of the 'real world' (ish) Batmans from Nolan, escalate the scope of what can happen just a little higher. Keep the 'trope' of Batman not really knowing what he is up against at first and having to adapt and learn and regroup, and then triumph.

From film to film up the stakes. In terms of how the bad guys will behave. Eventually you can have your supernatural or magical elements. All you have to do is have them introduced in a way that has Batman seek to investigate knowing only what he has learned so far, until the new threat, for as long as possible is something Batman encounters for the first time, has to assess...for example...This can't be real, it has to be some kind of trick....But the world's greatest detective knows full well, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable (etc).

Supernatural or magical elements apparently entering the equation, then take things a step further. After being dismissed as tricks and theatricality (his turf) things that cannot be explained by any other conclusion than 'this is really happening' transpire,after well enough made lead in scenes so that the audience doubt with Batman, dismiss the impossible with Batman, then learn with Batman:

The word impossible no longer applies, Master Bruce. If you persist in discounting even the thought that this may in fact be the truth of what is going in Gotham, you will always be one step behind. And that's not where Batman is supposed to be

It's just a little,,,

Hard to believe?

Just a little.

You're the one who's always talking about leaps of faith, though aren't you, sir?

Faith in me. Faith in you, Alfred...Gordon, Gotham...not...

Say the word, sir.

You say it.

It's just a word...Faith. In...

Magic.


I wrote that with Bale and Caine in mind, but change the actors, the relationship stays the same. Keep what keeps the soul of the films together. Everything else is negotiable. Every single time a new Batman film comes out, nobody knows precisely to expect, but will get enough of what they know to keep the faith with whatever decisions have been made.

And this gives a further freedom films don;t normally have. The freedom to fail. Because even if one film isn't quite 'right' establishing the 'build the story from the ground up every time' principle means the next one will once again be a different kind of Batman film.

Three, maybe four years after Nolan, and every three, maybe four years after that...Batman is Reborn. No need churn em out any faster. What's worth waiting for is worth waiting for.






I'm not really feeling this approach. Having one foot in Nolan-world, and the other in fantasy territory, or trying to transition from one to the other within the film, doesn't seem like it would work to me. You could do something similar to Nolan's take, but that might come across as just trying to drag out the series after the story has ended, and probably not as good. You could do something with an element of Nolan's realism, but allowing for somewhat more far-fetched stuff. What I hope they do is move on completely from Nolan's version and give it a clean slate.

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:22:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]


Would Fincher bring a new style to Batman that nolan hasnt?
Personally I've felt the Burtons batman films never reached a climax.Maybe bring Keaton back to set-up a take on The Dark Knight Returns.
But altogether I cant see a re-telling of batman for a few years yet.


That's my point, continuity between established Nolan 'world' and what follows is a priority for me.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:28:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]


Would Fincher bring a new style to Batman that nolan hasnt?
Personally I've felt the Burtons batman films never reached a climax.Maybe bring Keaton back to set-up a take on The Dark Knight Returns.
But altogether I cant see a re-telling of batman for a few years yet.


That's my point, continuity between established Nolan 'world' and what follows is a priority for me.


I would find that abit boring/samey in my opinion.




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:36:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]


Would Fincher bring a new style to Batman that nolan hasnt?
Personally I've felt the Burtons batman films never reached a climax.Maybe bring Keaton back to set-up a take on The Dark Knight Returns.
But altogether I cant see a re-telling of batman for a few years yet.


That's my point, continuity between established Nolan 'world' and what follows is a priority for me.


I would find that abit boring/samey in my opinion.


As I say, I'd prefer if they never make another Batman film again (if Nolan no longer wants to be involved) but I know that's unrealistic and for me, they have been perfect films and I wouldn't want them de-valued by some sub standard effort made by an inferior director so that's why I say, get Fincher in and keep as similar as possible to Nolan template.




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 1:43:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES


quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: OPEN YOUR EYES

Bring burton back!!.Seriously I think he'd do a great job,again.
(aslong as his Wifey isnt involved..)


As much as I am a life long fan and he's a great director and all that he did with the '89 Batman, he's not the right man to take forward what has been achieved in these three films of Nolan's.
 
FINCHER people [:D]


Would Fincher bring a new style to Batman that nolan hasnt?
Personally I've felt the Burtons batman films never reached a climax.Maybe bring Keaton back to set-up a take on The Dark Knight Returns.
But altogether I cant see a re-telling of batman for a few years yet.


That's my point, continuity between established Nolan 'world' and what follows is a priority for me.


I would find that abit boring/samey in my opinion.


As I say, I'd prefer if they never make another Batman film again (if Nolan no longer wants to be involved) but I know that's unrealistic and for me, they have been perfect films and I wouldn't want them de-valued by some sub standard effort made by an inferior director so that's why I say, get Fincher in and keep as similar as possible to Nolan template.


The first was perfect the second has its minor issues for me.




jobloffski -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 2:04:32 PM)


[/quote]

I'm not really feeling this approach. Having one foot in Nolan-world, and the other in fantasy territory, or trying to transition from one to the other within the film, doesn't seem like it would work to me. You could do something similar to Nolan's take, but that might come across as just trying to drag out the series after the story has ended, and probably not as good. You could do something with an element of Nolan's realism, but allowing for somewhat more far-fetched stuff. What I hope they do is move on completely from Nolan's version and give it a clean slate.

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?

[/quote]

People have been raised frim the dead using certain rituals, have they not?

Just talking about adding new things to the batverse as you go along. So the things that can happen in the films are broadened, but not at the expense of character integrity. Things that wouldn't previously been acceptable in Nolan's vision would be integrated into the general fabric of the world and become believable in context, treated as things that are possible, they just haven't been encountered yet. So it's not stradling realism and super-realism I'm talking about, but simple adding elements to the world incrementally, from one film to the next.

The idea of one man dressed as a clown terrorising a city is as bollocks in reality as a man dressed as a bat defending one is, but treated as possible in a filmic context, becomes plausible that someone could wander around so openly without getting twatted or shot. So if the decision of WB is to build on and broaden the world Nolan has developed, it can do that and capitalise on the way Nolan has made it normal that one film can be radically different in feel from the next (which is gold for the studio as far as I can see) they can bring in more outlandish stuff than Nolan would have without it being to jarring.

Who knows what approach WB will take, of course, but a factor in the decision will undoubtedly be the retention of some sense of gravitas and emotion rather than going too cartoony or bizarre, because a major factor in WB's thinking will surely be the extent that people who would never have watched a Batman film before TDK are now willing to watch TDKR without having to wait to hear a lot of fuss about it from poeple they know to persuade them to say 'oh, go on then.

The bigger hit TDKR turns out to be, the bigger the pressure to play slightly safe and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because the level of characterisation brought in by Nolan has, despite what blockbuster many movies do with characterisation (ie consider it largely irrelevant) made the films credible to more people than ever before.

I don't really forsee WB being willing to abandon the audience Nolan has brought to the party with a too radical reboot, especially considering the other outlets there are for Batman product, not least animated films. Money talks, and if treating essentially outlandish scenarios as though they are worth taking seriously in the films they result in makes so much money, then in business terms alone, you'd have to be insane not to keep what has worked best from the process, not least of which is the idea that a sequel DOESN'T have to be the previous film again, only louder, with a new coat of paint.

BB, TDK were, and no doubt TDKR will be, films that have very strong ideas at their core that are explored via the character and story interplay. Abandoning that aspect of the films to follow one or other of the iterations of Batman too closely because someone wants to see a film of this or that would probably be a very poor decision.

The films can develop and grow from one to the next, as their own beast, an incredibly dark and claustraphobic film can be followed by a more exciting one, with more vehicular action, or one that is a bit more devoted to excitement/fun. This can work just fine, because where WB are at, each film gets a free pass to be whatever it is going to be, and that is surely a more exciting prospect for the long term filmgoer, than going down the route of any of the animated versions and live action-ifying them.

total reinvention was needed after B&R. It's not needed now. Broken things need fixing, but;s not like Hollywood to break something that is working just fine, on purpose.








Titanm21 -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:00:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?



yes, loads of magic and stuff... Lazris Pits etc and the bird in the fishnet/Tophat combo... Also the dead guy (Giant D on his chest) that Batman sometimes talks to ... fucked if i can remember their names sorry [:)]

Plus you could argue a zombie robin [:D]




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:01:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanm21

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?



yes, loads of magic and stuff... Lazris Pits etc and the bird in the fishnet/Tophat combo... Also the dead guy (Giant D on his chest) that Batman sometimes talks to ... fucked if i can remember their names sorry [:)]

Plus you could argue a zombie robin [:D]


Big fan then ? [:D]




Titanm21 -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:05:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanm21

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?



yes, loads of magic and stuff... Lazris Pits etc and the bird in the fishnet/Tophat combo... Also the dead guy (Giant D on his chest) that Batman sometimes talks to ... fucked if i can remember their names sorry [:)]

Plus you could argue a zombie robin [:D]


Big fan then ? [:D]


HaHaHa Jason Todd [8D] there said it. Also I'm pretty sure its Deadman with the D on his chest. But the chick is lost on me.

I'm a marvel guy anyway [:D]




JIm R -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:07:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanm21

quote:

ORIGINAL: JIm R

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanm21

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?



yes, loads of magic and stuff... Lazris Pits etc and the bird in the fishnet/Tophat combo... Also the dead guy (Giant D on his chest) that Batman sometimes talks to ... fucked if i can remember their names sorry [:)]

Plus you could argue a zombie robin [:D]


Big fan then ? [:D]


HaHaHa Jason Todd [8D] there said it. Also I'm pretty sure its Deadman with the D on his chest. But the chick is lost on me.

I'm a marvel guy anyway [:D]


Any old excuse [8|] [:D]




Rob -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:30:11 PM)

Actually Zatana is reason enough for them to continue with more Batman films!

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/4286/132372-144256-zatanna_super.jpg




Invader_Ace -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:36:39 PM)

Man, I just get slightly embarrassed to be a comics reader when pictures like that get trotted out.

For all the good work in comics, in the main the female heroes always get treated prettily crappily and the Cheesecake design model is the worst.  Come on comics, grow up for fuck's sake!




Rob -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 4:49:47 PM)

That's probably one of the more conservative images out there!

I've always liked her as a character though and that has nothing to do with the way she's drawn.




Sotto Voce -> RE: Batman after Nolan (5/3/2012 5:18:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski




I'm not really feeling this approach. Having one foot in Nolan-world, and the other in fantasy territory, or trying to transition from one to the other within the film, doesn't seem like it would work to me. You could do something similar to Nolan's take, but that might come across as just trying to drag out the series after the story has ended, and probably not as good. You could do something with an element of Nolan's realism, but allowing for somewhat more far-fetched stuff. What I hope they do is move on completely from Nolan's version and give it a clean slate.

Come to think of it, is there anything supernatural in Batman anyway? Science-fantasy, yes, but is there anything supernatural?



People have been raised frim the dead using certain rituals, have they not?

Just talking about adding new things to the batverse as you go along. So the things that can happen in the films are broadened, but not at the expense of character integrity. Things that wouldn't previously been acceptable in Nolan's vision would be integrated into the general fabric of the world and become believable in context, treated as things that are possible, they just haven't been encountered yet. So it's not stradling realism and super-realism I'm talking about, but simple adding elements to the world incrementally, from one film to the next.

The idea of one man dressed as a clown terrorising a city is as bollocks in reality as a man dressed as a bat defending one is, but treated as possible in a filmic context, becomes plausible that someone could wander around so openly without getting twatted or shot. So if the decision of WB is to build on and broaden the world Nolan has developed, it can do that and capitalise on the way Nolan has made it normal that one film can be radically different in feel from the next (which is gold for the studio as far as I can see) they can bring in more outlandish stuff than Nolan would have without it being to jarring.

Who knows what approach WB will take, of course, but a factor in the decision will undoubtedly be the retention of some sense of gravitas and emotion rather than going too cartoony or bizarre, because a major factor in WB's thinking will surely be the extent that people who would never have watched a Batman film before TDK are now willing to watch TDKR without having to wait to hear a lot of fuss about it from poeple they know to persuade them to say 'oh, go on then.

The bigger hit TDKR turns out to be, the bigger the pressure to play slightly safe and not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because the level of characterisation brought in by Nolan has, despite what blockbuster many movies do with characterisation (ie consider it largely irrelevant) made the films credible to more people than ever before.

I don't really forsee WB being willing to abandon the audience Nolan has brought to the party with a too radical reboot, especially considering the other outlets there are for Batman product, not least animated films. Money talks, and if treating essentially outlandish scenarios as though they are worth taking seriously in the films they result in makes so much money, then in business terms alone, you'd have to be insane not to keep what has worked best from the process, not least of which is the idea that a sequel DOESN'T have to be the previous film again, only louder, with a new coat of paint.

BB, TDK were, and no doubt TDKR will be, films that have very strong ideas at their core that are explored via the character and story interplay. Abandoning that aspect of the films to follow one or other of the iterations of Batman too closely because someone wants to see a film of this or that would probably be a very poor decision.

The films can develop and grow from one to the next, as their own beast, an incredibly dark and claustraphobic film can be followed by a more exciting one, with more vehicular action, or one that is a bit more devoted to excitement/fun. This can work just fine, because where WB are at, each film gets a free pass to be whatever it is going to be, and that is surely a more exciting prospect for the long term filmgoer, than going down the route of any of the animated versions and live action-ifying them.

total reinvention was needed after B&R. It's not needed now. Broken things need fixing, but;s not like Hollywood to break something that is working just fine, on purpose.







True, they might well be inclined to emulate Nolan to some extent, and that's fine. Any film should have good characterisation etc., but if you took something as realist as what Nolan did, and then started introducing fantasy, that would be too jarring for me personally. If it was not that realist, but still pretty serious and straight-down-the-line, that would be okay. You don't want it to turn out like watered-down Nolan with with some far-out stuff inserted. If they can make it work, what the heck. I do think they should make it clear that its not the Nolan universe, even if its somewhat similar, and not be ambiguous like Superman Returns.

So you've got lazarus pits- Zatanna and Deadman, are they Batman characters, or are they just characters Batman has met at some point?






Invader_Ace -> RE: Batman after Nolan (6/3/2012 3:51:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob
That's probably one of the more conservative images out there!
I've always liked her as a character though and that has nothing to do with the way she's drawn.


Bit hypocritical of me to be honest, as Zantana is one of the few DC Heroines to come to my attention and it isn't because of the writing, as I have never read any!

Anyhoo, back on topic.  I want to see Man-Bat on screen!




OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: Batman after Nolan (6/3/2012 4:21:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Invader_Ace

Man, I just get slightly embarrassed to be a comics reader when pictures like that get trotted out.

For all the good work in comics, in the main the female heroes always get treated prettily crappily and the Cheesecake design model is the worst.  Come on comics, grow up for fuck's sake!


Another reason I much prefer independant artists nowadays.
They are not confined to modern mainstream comic art,which lacks character imo.




jon5000 -> RE: Batman after Nolan (6/3/2012 4:51:47 PM)

I don't necessarily agree with doing it just for the sake of keeping the franchise alive, as it were. Though I'd think the financiers might look at that differently!

Maybe something more in line with Arkham Asylum would go down well? I've always liked the idea of Guillermo Del Toro trying his hand at the Bat universe in that kind of style. I do miss the more darkly fantastic aspects of the universe. But honestly, if that were announced as the next venture for the character, given what we have now, I don't think I'd be that excited... I feel a bit indifferent to anything new really. Or uninspired.

Much like I am indifferent to the new Spiderman. Though I'm looking forward to the new Superman as that was in need of a fresh approach I think.

I'm not entirely sure Batman needs one?

Prove me wrong Warner Bros.!




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.09375