AxlReznor
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2/12/2010 From: Great Britain
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vad3r quote:
ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44 Because you get dimmishing returns - look at the Saw series for example. The Saw films are shit because they're made by nobodies, with no budget and no actors. Not because there's a new one out every year. I'd let a new director/writer have a new crack at Batman every year. That way we keep it fresh, exciting and it can be like a competition Imagine a new Batman epic once a year by Aronofsky, Duncan Jones, Blompkamp, Winding Refn, Fincher, Scorcese, Del Toro etc For a movie the size of Batman it usually takes more than a year to get a story that the director, studio and star are happy with. Then if they do it properly, pre-production (design, casting, location hunting) can take getting on for a year, too. Then the shoots take longer than other movies, too, because they've got a bigger budget to work with (and you need a large budget for a movie the scope of a Batman movie). Then after that there's post-production (visual effects, sound effects, etc.) and the studio requires a decent amount of time to promote it. In short, Batman will be just as shit as Saw if they make the sacrifices necessary to make it an annualised series. You can't rush these things. Three years is the minimum that it could possibly take... Batman & Robin was rushed out in two years to capitalise on the success of Batman Forever. We know how that went.
_____________________________
"It's amazing how many supposed 'plot holes' turn out to now be plot holes if you'd just pay attention", Me
|