jobloffski
Posts: 1837
Joined: 30/9/2005 From: elsewhere
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Whistler Warner Brothers planning for a 2016 release date. http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/not-wasting-any-time-wb-to-bring-a-new-batman-franchise-to-theaters-in-2016 I still think rebooting it is a stupid idea. Four years is plenty long enough, I reckon. I also reckon they HAVE to reboot. I don't see how the efforts to create an everlasting symbol in the form of The Batman lend themselves to a JGL led fourquel. The character of Blake is also a symbol, of a person prepared to stand up for the people of Gotham. I feel the narrative of Nolan's films were designed to end so it was irrelevant who was wearing the suit, indeed, he even has Bale say, to JGL, Batman could be anyone. Batman is the everlasting symbol in the continuity, should Gotham need Batman again, JGL, or whoever else, would just don the suit and be 'more than a man, a terrible thought, a wraith, an idea'. People have commented that Blake would get battered if he put the suit on, due to lack of training. But the films have already established 'The training is nothing. Will is everything. The will to act'. Blake has that, and in TDKR demonstrated the appropriate characteristics that would make him the right person to put on the suit, should Gotham need its defender (made even more powerful symbolically because if he returned, as far as people are concerned, he's returning from the dead. There would be no sense in such story circumstances in creating a new symbol in the same continuity. Bruce's intentions have been realised. The symbol of Batman is everlasting. And since the current film has gone down the 'destroy all of Gotham' route, it's pretty much as far as you can go in raising the stakes. TDKR introduces a potential successor, having taken the hero of the story as far as a hero can go. Even the death of Batman is symbolic. Batman is symbolic and the narrative has made the identity of the person in the suit irrelevant. All the themes set up by BB have been played out. There is nowhere narratively left to go except down. So reboot, freeing up the entire, unused by Nolan and used by Nolan rogues gallery for reinterpretation, without the constraints of the 'realism' of Nolan. I previously advocated 'evolution, not revolution' and suggested that recasting after TDKR could allow the fantastical elements to be introduced, continuing the theme of escalation, continuing the trope of Batman encountering something he had not faced before (so magic would work in the continuity, introduced in a way that has Batman believing it is all trickery, and placing him anew in a situation of coping with something he does not understand and has to overcome through will and tenacity).. But IMO, TDKR is an absolute ending of an iteration of Batman. There must be a reboot. There must. It doesn't mean that a reboot can't BEGIN from relatively continuous circumstances and it means it is possible to introduce the fantastical as simply new story developments, at a pace the audience Nolan has brought freshly to the franchise will go for, and thusly by increments the world can be opened up to other types of stories. But, again IMO, crucial to the success of the nest move WB makes is the character of Batman, played by Bruce wayne. Recast, renewed, reborn. Symbolically, anyone can be batman, in the stories as presented by Nolan. But the movies depend on the Bruce Wayne/Batman duality, and its capacity for continual reinvention and much as James Bond needs James Bond (in fact, what N olan has done has made it reasonable to expect the audience to expect new cast = new approach just as with Bond). Spin off comics or animations featuring Blake are one thing, but 200m plus budgets for live action movies require judicious playing of one's Aces (and indeed, Jokers).
< Message edited by jobloffski -- 7/8/2012 12:01:13 PM >
_____________________________
Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.
|