The W
Views: 97896889
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
2.8.14 0145
The W - Movies & TV - Nolan mentoring on Superman while doing Batman 3
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1 2 Next
(2157 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (34 total)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-chris-nolan-hell-mentor-superman-3-0-while-preparing-3rd-batman/

As long as they get someone to write that is at least knowledgeable about Superman. Superman Returns looked nice, but damn that script was utter shit. I hope they can go with the origin even it means dealing with the legal ramifications. So, anyone want to take the over/under on how the Batman 3 villain will be? Goyer also quit Flash Forward due other commitments ie Batman 3. Things are moving on that front when it looked like it was going to be left with Dark Knight.
Promote this thread!
John Orquiola
Scrapple








Since: 28.2.02
From: Boston

Since last post: 34 days
Last activity: 34 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.18
My gut reaction is that this is good news. It makes sense for Warners to turn to Nolan since he has delivered well beyond anyone's expectations with the Batman franchise that was killed dead by Joel Schumacher in the 90's.

There isn't any more information otherwise to get excited about or take umbrage over (unless you hate Nolan for some reason.)

Myself, I would prefer not to see the origin again.




@BackoftheHead
www.backofthehead.com
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 29 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.49
Until they officially announce that Nolan is on BATMAN 3 I'm not buying it. I don't think he's gonna do another one.
Tenken347
Boudin blanc








Since: 27.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 12 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.03
    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
    Until they officially announce that Nolan is on BATMAN 3 I'm not buying it. I don't think he's gonna do another one.


There's way too much money involved for him to walk away at this point. He might hold out for a bigger cut (and he'd deserve it), but he'd be stupid to leave the franchise at this point, and it would be even stupider for WB to let him.
samoflange
Lap cheong








Since: 22.2.04
From: Cambridge, MA

Since last post: 289 days
Last activity: 281 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.40
What reason would Nolan have not to do a third Batman film? They have been wildly successful, and he hasn't had to compromise his vision in any way (that I ever heard about). Artistic integrity intact, mountains of cash in the bank, why stop now?



Lloyd: When I met Mary, I got that old fashioned romantic feeling, where I'd do anything to bone her.
Harry: That's a special feeling.
ekedolphin
Scrapple








Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA

Since last post: 44 days
Last activity: 8 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.41
The saga that began with Batman Begins just seems to have a logical three-part sequence. At the end of The Dark Knight the citizens of Gotham have been turned against Batman, because he's taken the flack for all the bad things Harvey did as the pressure started to take its toll on him.

Now they've gotta find a way to conclude the story, ending it with Batman once again being thought of as a hero.



"You're about as much fun as a divorce-- which is not a bad idea."
"I want custody of me."

--Michael Knight and KITT, Knight Rider

Fan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals

Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials!

Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006

Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
    Originally posted by ekedolphin
    Now they've gotta find a way to conclude the story, ending it with Batman once again being thought of as a hero.


The first two films set the expectation in me that the trilogy would end with Gotham not needing a costumed hero. Nolan's batman wanted to inspire, and Dent's ascension made it possible for Wayne to begin thinking about life after Batman.





"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 5 hours
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.41
As long as Joker is alive, there always be a need for Batman. Nolan should have swapped the destinies of Joker and Two-Face. Now, he is stuck making a movie with a character people want to see by an actor who is dead and re-casting will be pure hell. Nolan would be smart to maybe walk away due to the insane expectations of this film. I don't see how the third one is going to be any good considering where they put themselves into. If I were him, I would do the producer credit/consultant deal. You have to bring Batman back to protect the city even before Bruce became Batman, you still had Ras and Scarecrow running around. I never bought into Batman creates his villains, its vice-versa, because they were already damaged goods to begin with. Maybe no costumes or make-up, but they still would be threats to society.
Shadowhendrix
Linguica








Since: 27.6.08

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.82
    Originally posted by lotjx
    As long as Joker is alive, there always be a need for Batman. Nolan should have swapped the destinies of Joker and Two-Face. Now, he is stuck making a movie with a character people want to see by an actor who is dead and re-casting will be pure hell.


I'm not 100% sure he would transfer well, but James Spader (Alan Shore on "Boston Legal" and "The Practice") seems like he could be a PHENOMENAL Joker. Very charismatic and creepy at the same time, and has probably the best nonverbal acting abilities and facial expressions I've seen on TV in the past decade or so. The appearance would of course be altered a bit, as Spader is older and heavier, but I think he could make it work.

Of course, the backlash will/would be insane, because it is heresy to ever recast dead actors, and teenage girls would not have nearly as many fantasies about Spader as Ledger. (Though if they ever watched Boston Legal, they would probably get turned on by Spader's dialog if they gave him a chance.)
Kevintripod
Andouille








Since: 11.5.03
From: Mount Pleasant, Pa.

Since last post: 10 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.73
    Originally posted by Shadowhendrix
    James Spader (Alan Shore on "Boston Legal" and "The Practice") seems like he could be a PHENOMENAL Joker. Very charismatic and creepy at the same time, and has probably the best nonverbal acting abilities and facial expressions I've seen on TV in the past decade or so.


Sean Penn would be my front runner if I had to make that replacement decision (unless the rumors are true that they're interested in Penn playing the Riddler).



The best part of waking up is not Folgers in your cup, but knowing that Chuck Norris didn't kill you in your sleep.
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.69
    Originally posted by lotjx
    As long as Joker is alive, there always be a need for Batman. Nolan should have swapped the destinies of Joker and Two-Face. Now, he is stuck making a movie with a character people want to see by an actor who is dead and re-casting will be pure hell.


When Ledger died, TDK was already shot and in the editing process. And without Heath, it's not like Nolan could've gone back and done the rewrites/reshoots needed to re-jig those storylines.

And really, I can't speak for the entire filmgoing audience, but I think people will understand why we don't see Joker again. The closest we might get is if Harley Quinn is a character, but even that's a stretch.

(edited by Big Bad on 9.2.10 1944)


Kirk, crackers are a family food. Happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without.
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 29 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.49
Nolan is essentially competing with himself on BATMAN 3. He made the most successful critical and commercial superhero film ever, and he directed Heath Ledger to an Oscar. Where is there left for him to go? What's to prove? I think he's exec produce, but someone else will direct.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 24 days
Last activity: 6 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    I can't speak for the entire filmgoing audience, but I think people will understand why we don't see Joker again. The closest we might get is if Harley Quinn is a character, but even that's a stretch.
Aye, I think they can get away without needing to give Joker any screen time. In terms of the story he's locked up until further notice, and I'd hope people would cut them for slack for it in any event with Ledger being dead. Joker might be the iconic arch-enemy, but Batman's got a ludicrous catalogue of supervillains they can turn to. Besides, I can't imagine many actors being too keen to fill those particular shoes.

    Originally posted by Matt Tracker
    The first two films set the expectation in me that the trilogy would end with Gotham not needing a costumed hero. Nolan's batman wanted to inspire, and Dent's ascension made it possible for Wayne to begin thinking about life after Batman.
I took it the other way. Despite Dent's ascension he still wound up getting dragged down the wrong path and Gotham still ended up needing Batman, albeit in the role of villain rather than hero. I thought the third movie would see the rise of something so terrible that the fine folks of Gotham would come to realise Bats was the hero they needed after all.

Batman would wind up being recognised as a hero, but he'd also be doomed to keep living a double life and fighting evil for ever more. Moving on to life without Batman just seems a bit too 'happily-ever-after' for the franchise.

Cerebus
Knackwurst








Since: 17.11.02

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.48
I don't care for this news in the least.

I thought DARK KNIGHT was terrible. Sure, it made a shit load of money... so did XMEN 3... and TRANSFORMERS 2... SPIDER-MAN 3... INDIANA JONES/CRYSTAL SKULL. You see where I'm getting at; people like shit.

TDK was seen by everyone because Ledger died, that's it. Even with that, it was just because the news media made him out to be some 'great actor' who's previous screen credits included ROAR (a TV Series no one watched), 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, KNIGHTS TALE, FOUR FEATHERS, BROTHERS GRIMM and about a dozen of other films that no one bothered to see up until Ang Lee put him in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and Hollywood gave him an award nomination for playing a gay cowboy. Oh yeah, BROKEBACK only made 83 million so you could say that no one really saw that one either. If he hadn't died, it only would have done a little better then BATMAN BEGINS (Which only made 205 million here).

It's fairly easy to put a different actor in the same role. They've done it already, repeatedly with all the BATMAN films, from Michael Keaton on up to Christian Bale. In the Nolan films, they've already had two actresses playing the same role (Katie Holmes and Maggie Gyllenhaal). Hell, Billy Dee Williams originally played Harvey Dent in Tim Burtons BATMAN in anticipation of playing Two Face but he was replaced by the horrible Tommy Lee Jones for BATMAN FOREVER.

JAMES BOND is replaced every few movies and it's always worked out well. The same with Richard Harris who played Dumbledore in the first two HARRY POTTER films and was seamlessly recast with Michael Gambon when Harris passed away.

The whole 'mystique' over Heath Ledger has died down enough that I'm sure it would be easy to get someone else to play The Joker. How about Crispin Glover?

----------

More on the subject...

SUPERMAN is not a 'dark hero' and the idea of giving the character a 'dark feel' is retarded. Nolan is totally the wrong person for this franchise... in every way.

(edited by Cerebus on 10.2.10 1038)


Forget it Josh... it's Cerebustown.
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 29 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.49
Do you actually watch films? Like, at all?

Crispin Glover is a HORRIBLE choice for Joker. He would be...Crispin Clover! In clown make-up!

But please, tell me again that I like shit and that you're right. Something tells me your movie choices are informed by things other than quality, given the BROKEBACK cracks.
dMr
Andouille








Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 24 days
Last activity: 6 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    TDK was seen by everyone because Ledger died, that's it. Even with that, it was just because the news media made him out to be some 'great actor' who's previous screen credits included ROAR (a TV Series no one watched), 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU, KNIGHTS TALE,

Hey now! Say what you like about the rest, but Knight's Tale was a perfectly fun movie and Shannyn Sossamon was all sorts of smoking.

I actually went to TDK fully expecting to be underwhelmed by Ledger's performance because I figured the praise was likely due to him dying, but I honestly thought he was outstanding in it.

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I thought DARK KNIGHT was terrible. Sure, it made a shit load of money... so did XMEN 3... and TRANSFORMERS 2... SPIDER-MAN 3... INDIANA JONES/CRYSTAL SKULL. You see where I'm getting at; people like shit.
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    ROAR (a TV Series no one watched)
So if stuff sucks because lots of people watch it AND because nobody watches it, what does this leave me? Should I only watch movies or shows that are watched by a modest number of people? Enquiring minds man....
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    It's fairly easy to put a different actor in the same role....Hell, Billy Dee Williams originally played Harvey Dent in Tim Burtons BATMAN in anticipation of playing Two Face but he was replaced by the horrible Tommy Lee Jones for BATMAN FOREVER.

I think this is the point. You can replace them but there's a good chance the replacement will suck, especially if the most recent guy to play the role was well received.

EDIT - had to run off to a meeting mid-post.


    SUPERMAN is not a 'dark hero' and the idea of giving the character a 'dark feel' is retarded.
With you all the way on this one. I hate, hate, HATE the tendency to give superhero movies a darker feel these days. In some cases it's great, but in many more it's completely unnecessary.

(edited by dMr on 10.2.10 1704)
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 126 days
Last activity: 2 days
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.58
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I don't care for this news in the least.

    I thought DARK KNIGHT was terrible.

...aaaand here's where I stopped reading your post. You're crazy. Period.

- StingArmy
Leroy
Andouille








Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.09
    Originally posted by Amos Cochrane
    Do you actually watch films? Like, at all?


Hey, watch it! That's Uwe Boll's biggest fan you're talking to there!

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and Hollywood gave him an award nomination for playing a gay cowboy. Oh yeah, BROKEBACK only made 83 million so you could say that no one really saw that one either.


I KNOW HOW TO WIKIPEDIA, TOO!!!

Brokeback Mountain's theatrical run lasted for 133 days and grossed $83,043,761 in North America and $95,000,000 abroad, adding up to a worldwide gross of more than $178 million. It is the top-grossing release of Focus Features, ranks fifth among the highest-grossing westerns (since 1979) and eighth among the highest-grossing romantic dramas (1980-Present).
...
Indeed, the movie was one of the top five highest-grossing films in the U.S. every day from January 17 until January 28, including over the weekend (when more people go to the movies and big-budget films usually crowd out independent films from the top-grossing list) of January 20-22.


    Originally posted by Cerebus
    More on the subject...


Four words to always fear when written by Cerebus.




Who likes the little little duckies in the pond? I do, I do, I do, a chicka-quack quack.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.03
    Originally posted by Cerebus
    I don't care for this news in the least.

    I thought DARK KNIGHT was terrible. Sure, it made a shit load of money... so did XMEN 3... and TRANSFORMERS 2... SPIDER-MAN 3... INDIANA JONES/CRYSTAL SKULL. You see where I'm getting at; people like shit.


Ummm...are you then saying that it follows that ALL movies that make a ton of money are shit? Because that way lies madness. I don't think anyone said that Dark Knight was good *because* it made a lot of money.

I could see "somewhat overrated" for Dark Knight, given the level of hype about it. I don't think it was the best superhero movie ever...but I certainly think it was better than most. As, for that matter, was Batman Begins. Certainly Nolan's Gotham blows Tim Burton's out of the water.

    Originally posted by Cerebus
    More on the subject...

    SUPERMAN is not a 'dark hero' and the idea of giving the character a 'dark feel' is retarded. Nolan is totally the wrong person for this franchise... in every way.



This, however, I agree with. (Well, I wouldn't have used that particular adjective up there, but other than that.) Superman is a very different character from Batman and he's not supposed to be dark. Trying to go in that direction could be a problem.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
#20 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
I don't think TDK was awful or Ledger was awful, but I do think his performance was kind of overrated, and I was honestly more intrigued by Aaron Eckhart's work in the movie than Ledger's.

That said, if only due to the sheer massive audience TDK had, it is likely best not to use Joker in the next film. For better or worse, Ledger is Joker for a while now, and they're better served to go to a fresh villain.



2007 and 2008 W-League Fantasy Football champion!
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: 1 2 Next
Thread ahead: Community 1x16 - "Communication Studies"
Next thread: Parks and Recreation 2x16 - "Galentine's Day"
Previous thread: Survivor Heroes v. Villains: Episode 1
(2157 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Again, due to me being lazy, here's a "quick & dirty" listing of the 35 Blu-rays and 254 (give or take some digital rental/purchases) DVDs out Tuesday. Top 24 are in large italics.
- CRZ, 9/6/11: 289 releases (2011)
Related threads: 14 dic SUPERMAN collection anyone? - Superman Returns - Bryan Singer Interview - More...
The W - Movies & TV - Nolan mentoring on Superman while doing Batman 3Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.209 seconds.