That's what I'm talking about. This guy was Patrick freaking Bateman! Anybody who can pull of such a sick lunatic surely is capable of carrying a movie focused on the demons within Bruce Wayne. Honestly, they could develop his character much more than they have thus far... in fact, his Bruce Wayne may be the most cheesiest of all the batman movies. We hardly see scenes of him truly suffering, minus the ones where Caine (Alfred) is postulating his thoughts and carrying the scene. The scenes of him portraying the "playboy bachelor" are fun, and Bale pulls them off without a hitch, but we all know that he's only doing it to keep up appearences.... we all know that's not the real Bruce Wayne. To me, Keaton actually had the best hold of grasping Bruce Wayne, the human, in the very first film. A good combination of reclusiveness, depression, witty banter, womanizing, and lunacy ("you wanna get nuts?... c'mon... lets get nuts!"). Right now, Bale is being utilized as nothing more than a pretty face, and a guy with decent physique. Lets put his ACTING to use... and maybe the next movie doesn't have to be all about the villian.
Chris Nolan has yet to make a bad film, even Insomnia with a long past-his-prime Al Pacino and a twisted Robin Williams was still pretty good. If he signs on to do a 3rd Batman, color me ecstatic.
Every hero needs a good villain. The villain often times is as compelling as the hero. Batman has joker; Superman has Luthor; ff have doom; Xmen have magneto; optimus has megatron; Without a good villain the story just isn't that good..
I understand that completely... but the last movie was almost ENTIRELY about the Joker, save for a few scenes of Bale looking distraught when everyone was dying. Hell, even Eckhardt had more dedicated lines/face time than Bale did. I'm not saying to not have a villian... I'm just saying that Bale's talent (as an actor) is being underutilized.
That's what Batman Begins was about. There was very little of a villain's development at all in that movie. Dark Knight was about setting up the arch-nemesis and his rivalry with him, upon which the real storyline of this whole series is based. The yin to Batman's yang. This is not the typical, formulaic "new movie, new bad guy" superhero series. I don't think Nolan ever intended for it to be.
I still don't think they utilized Bale's ability well in that movie... save for his "action" scenes where he's kung fu fighting. Maybe I need to watch it again... I've watched the Dark Knight waaay too much recently.
yeah, watch it again and see what you think. i think it does a great job with the backstory....and most of the time through that movie, he is not Batman. He's Bruce Wayne.
I've been thinking about it since this thread popped back up... Watched Dark Knight again. Mulled over it. IT CANT BE DONE. This isn't a trilogy. If it culminates in 3 it will fail. 3 has to build on 2 and lead the way to 4. 3 has to be a setup movie and less of an epic. It cannot be the ending chapter and come off genuine. They need to just abandon the trilogy idea and make 4 or 5 minimum. Batman sacrificed his image for Two Face so go ahead and make 3 a Two Face heavy flick. Batman can deal with the city hating him for both 3 & 4.
I'd take it even further. There's no reason to have any kind of cap on this. DC Comics has been telling great Batman stories for 70 years. There's no reason there should be an end to this series any more than there is to the James Bond films. The mythology of Batman is unending. Keep em coming forever.
Thought about that too. Can't maintain the gravity of this incarnation if they keep it going forever. Thats the problem with comics; you get different writers, different takes, you lose the backstory, you lose direction, and there is no solid beginning/middle/end. Bond to me is like a fun little adventure type feature, like a TV show turned into a movie. Nolan's Batman transcends that! If they keep it going forever we will watch, we will love them, it will be fun, but it wont be this deep.
I disagree. As great as Nolan's films have been, the only drawback to them is trying to cram the legend of Batman into a series of films. The legend of Ra's al Ghul got short shrift I thought, due to trying to pack his story into one film. Look at the comics version and you'll see the potential for five or ten films just dedicated to him. Ledger's death complicates things, but one of the best things about The Joker is that he is eternal (like Batman). I can imagine there being twenty Joker-centric films without losing impact. There are way more than that many impactful stories in the comics.
Don't you think this would only cater to and attract the really hardcore fans? I don't see enough people coming back to the theaters over and over to justify the budget these films cost to make?
No, I don't. There are several epic stories in the comics that would translate beautifully and would be really exciting (and, I believe, popular) on film. And that's not counting the ones that haven't been written yet.
I agree. I think killing Ras (if they "really" did) was a mistake. He could be an overarching character throughout a series of films about Batman just as easily as Joker could.
Yep. And leaving out Talia and the Lazarus Pit was stupid as hell. I want to see some of that classic Denny O'Neill/Neal Adams stuff. That storyline was practically the backbone for the first serious Batman era ever, in the 70s. And it was so rich. The Batman Begins Ra's was a sorry shadow of the original character.
New Two Face movie as well in 2013. So Awesome! :grin: :grin: :grin: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt126377
