The Dark Knight sequel discussion thread (casting, villians, etc) (1 Viewer)

[Steve_Tk]

I'm not expecting the next movie to match the success of TDK. I just want another good movie. I realize that the Joker is the ultimate villain for the franchise, and by using him in the second movie you essentially set yourself for a lesser third film, when it comes to the average movie fan. But we can still have a damn good movie. Who cares if it doesn't break records.

 

[todd s]

That is why I said you have to have Superman in the next movie. If done right (and it can be). It's the only hope to have something bigger than TDK both hype-wise and financially.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I respectfully disagree.

(I should stay, to begin with, that I'm not a huge fan of all of the Batman "graphic novels" that I'm "supposed" to like, things like The Killing Joke, Batman Year One, or The Dark Knight Returns. I think the new movies cherry-picked some of the best bits of those books and I have no objection to that, but I went from plain old not being into The Dark Knight Returns book to flat out disliking it once Superman appeared.)

Christopher Nolan's envisioning of Batman involves a more realistic world... now, we can argue forever (and I hope we don't) about how realistic it actually is, whether a water vaporizer could be used to help poison an entire city, or whether cell-phones could be turned into a city-wide sonar tracking system. But if they are flights of fancy, they're more in line with James Bond/Bourne Identity kinds of fantasy.

In the world of this Batman, Superman can't exist. Plain and simple. We live in a world that's more global than ever know, so the notion of each city having its own protector only goes so far. Batman can be Batman for Gotham because underneath it all, he is a mortal and the rules of physics apply. But Superman can be anywhere and everywhere at once, so there's no way in today's world that Superman would just hover around Metropolis and no one else would notice or put it on the news -- in other words, putting Superman in the story already turns it from being the story of a city into a more global piece... but that's not even my main objection.

I love Superman. I really do. Superman: The Movie is amazing, I really like both versions of Superman II, and Superman Returns was one of my very favorite films of 2006. But I don't think Superman belongs in Batman's world, especially not Christopher Nolan's Batman. I don't buy it dramatically, I don't buy it practically. In my mind, if Superman is the villain, he's basically unstoppable, and Superman isn't the villainous type (part of why I hated his appearance in The Dark Knight Returns book). If Batman is the villain, and I have a hard time with that as well, Superman kicks his ass from here to the corner. Grab him, pull off his mask, hand him over to the feds, hello padded cell forever.

The messages behind both characters are also very different... the idea with Superman being that he's this protector that's been sent to come to our aid, that he might live among us but that he's not one of us... to believe in Superman is to believe in outside forces taking control of our destiny or at least protecting us on our way to finding it. Batman, on the other hand, is this idea that within each of us lies the ability to say, "OK, things are very, very wrong with the world, and it's just enough...it's time to stop depending on others to save us and take matters into our own hands, to bend the laws that the cops can't to preserve a larger sense of order." The idea with Superman is that something greater than us will be our only hope and will save us; the idea with Batman is that we can save ourselves.

I think part of the reason "The Dark Knight" has made such a resounding impact is that people are able to relate to it in no small part because it does use a more or less realistic setting. It presents moral dilemmas and it shows characters responding to them, but it doesn't really take sides...at no point did I really feel that the film was saying "Batman is always right" or "The Joker is completely wrong" or "Two-Face doesn't have a point". The movie works on such a grand scale because we can see those characters and remember things we've experienced, upclose or otherwise, and draw parallels from that. One thing Rachel Dawes said in the first film--"Justice is about balance"--holds true throughout. The existence of Batman doesn't give justice balance... it tips the scales in favor of justice and against chaos, and it's the appearance of the Joker that restores that balance. If Batman is the action... the Joker is the reaction. So as you watch the movie, maybe you're thinking, "I don't entirely disagree with the Joker, some of these rules we all play by seem arbitrary at best, or designed to work against us at worst...and I can see how someone can get to a point where they just reject the whole idea." When you see Batman and Fox debating the surveillance machine Batman's come up with, you understand the reasoning behind it...you know Batman isn't going to misuse it and is going to try to stop a mass-murdering terrorist with its help...but you also know that you wouldn't really trust anyone else with such a thing either, so the movie makes us wonder how we're supposed to respond to such a threat. And Harvey Dent...here's someone who's played by the rules his entire life, built a career on that, tried to right things...but he's human and he's made to snap, and in an instant, we're shown how hard it is to put all of your hopes into one person. In the end, we know that Batman has done all of the right things...but does that give him the right to have done them? Do the ends justify the means?

I don't see how Superman appearing in a Christopher Nolan Batman film adds to any of these themes or fits into his universe. While I'm not sure if the Riddler is the ideal next villain, it's not a bad idea. Batman was always supposed to be something of a detective, and a character like the Riddler might present ways for Batman to do more detecting... maybe the police aren't able to figure him out, but somehow Batman starts to... and that's when Gotham turns back to him.

Anyhow, long post, but put me down in the "anyone but Superman" column.

 

[cafink]

I agree, Josh.

With Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Nolan has made it pretty clear that he's not interested in the more fanciful elements of the Batman mythos. Batman has always been one of the more "realistic" superheroes, lacking any super-powers, and even then, Nolan has opted to include the more mundane elements of the comics over the more outlandish ones, particularly in his choice of villains. Scarecrow is just a guy with a potato sack over his head, Joker is a guy in a loud suit and makeup, and Two-face is a disfigured guy. Compare them to, say, Mr. Freeze or Man-Bat, who include more extreme science-fiction/supernatural elements, and I think it's pretty clear that Superman would never appear in this Batman universe as long as Nolan is at the helm.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Not my idea (read it on Millarworld, credit goes to a guy named Ryan), but it's worthy of bringing to the table:

How about Talia Al Ghul played by an Oscar winner:

Marion Cotillard

 

[Ruz-El]

Not interested in fanciful elements? ummm.... Batmobile that looks like a tank drives over roof tops... Batman has a sonar gadget in his boot that summons about 10,000 bats... Scarecrow is a guy in a potato sack who poinsons half of gotham with a "fear gas", and thats just the first film... no fanciful elements there.

Superman would totally work in this film. the difference is, when he showed up, it would be a "holy fuck, the gods have arrived!" moment instead of a nice cuddly goofy thing as portrayed in all the other movies.

 

[Pete-D]

Nolan's Batman would just smack Superman upside the head with a Kryptonite ring and send him crying back to Smallville. Because he's the goddamn Batman.

"What gives you the right? What makes you so different?"

"I'm not wearing ice capades tights"

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I've been avoiding this thread since TDK crushed the concept of fantasy casting and fantasy scripting. Get talent. Let talent be talented. Rinse and repeat. As I said elsewhere, my interest in this film is directly proportional to Nolan's enthusiasm to make it. As long as WB's gives him the leeway they did on TDK, I don't care about where he takes it.


As for Superman, I have to agree with Pete. If Kumar and Kevin Spacey's Lex can drop a beatdown on Supes, this Batman would break it off in his ass. And then stick him in such a moral quandary, he'd never find his way out. Superman is playing checkers, baby, and Batman is playing that weird 3-D chess thing from Star Trek. With himself.

As john doran once said of Batman (the Grant Morrison JLA take from the mid-90's), he's so hardcore, you'd beat yourself with a stick just to save him the trouble.

 

[EricW]

like the other poster said, relatively realistic. didn't they make a Bond car freaking INVISIBLE in Die Another Day? and he para-surfed past a satellite death ray? no wonder they rebooted Bond...

 

[Patrick Sun]

Wasn't it "ice hockey pants"?

 

[EricW]

i think it was "i'm not wearing hockey pads"

 

[Audioman321]

The epic Batman saga grossed US$75.6 million in its second weekend in theaters, pushing its domestic total to US$314,245,000. That surpasses the record set in 2006 by "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," which took 16 days to make $300 million.
What great villains do you want to see in the next batman movie?

5 most wanted Great Villains in the Next Batman Movie

 

[cafink]

Compared to an alien who travels light-years to earth as a baby, just happens to look perfectly human, and has super powers? Tanks, sonar, and poison gases are, relatively speaking, not very fanciful.

 

[Ruz-El]

well, Supes is a science hero ain't he? the thing is, what Nolan is doing right in these films has nothing to do really with him being all the brilliant a film maker, it has to do with him treating the sorce material seriously. this is something they've been doing right in the comics, and all the successful film adaptations has worked as well. Poor old Superman has always gotten the "funny nice comic" treatmeant, even in the much loved Donner film. If they treated Superman in a BAtman film, and there is no evidence that Nolan wouldn't, the way he is in the comics, it would completely elevate the series. When Superman shows up in another characters comic, it's typically a sign that things have gotten really dire, and Superman is the one to fix it, and it's a little scary sometimes. Superman in the movies has always been a puss whos saved people, never really having a proper fight, and as such, everyone thinks he's a puss.


The real problem Nolan would have with putting Superman in his current Batman movies is coming up with a problem worthy of Superman to show up for frankly.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

You nailed it, there is nothing in either Nolan Batman film that would pose a challenge to Supes, if he had shown up in TDK he would have swooped down and scooped up the Joker in 5 minutes during the bank heist because, unlike Batman, Supes has no reservations about fighting crime during the day.

Don't get me wrong I love Batman but i've always found his crime-fighting policy to be a bit strange, it's like he likes to stop evil-doers but he must look dark and brooding while doing it lol. Maybe he's afraid people will be able to see the zipper on his suit during the day.

 

[cafink]

No, Batman is a science hero. His gadgets, particularly as portrayed in Nolan's films, are based on existing technologies. His use of them may be a bit over-the-top, but no more so, than, say, James Bond or Jason Bourne (to use Josh's fine examples). Armored vehicles, sonar equipment, and mind-altering drugs all exist in the real world. Riding across rooftops in a tank might not be quite as easy as it's depicted in Batman Begins, but it's essentially a physically possible act.

Superman is strictly fantasy. He has supernatural powers. The "alien planet" background story works fine within the Superman comics and films, but it's not a remotely plausible explanation in the context of the real world. No actual explanation of his abilities is given; it's just, "oh, he's an alien who gets his powers from the sun." This is far, far beyond the level of fantasy in either of Nolan's Batman pictures.

Based on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I feel confident in saying that as long as Nolan is in control of the Batman film franchise, Superman will not appear.

 

[Nick Martin]

I can't stand the Superman character and would hate the idea of him appearing in any sort of Batman film. Just because there are additional DC superheroes, doesn't mean they MUST co-exist within each character's own universe as seen on film. As a kid, I thought it "would've been cool" if major characters from different movies that took place in the same city would be aware of each other, for example RoboCop and Axel Foley in Detroit, or the Ghostbusters and the Ninja Turtles (why not add Spider-Man in there too for the hell of it) in New York - that kind of thing.

Would that actually be a good idea? Not remotely. Batman and Superman are just too different, especially with the Batman we now have.


The third film doesn't NEED a major villain considering the setup in TDK, and it would almost feel tacked on if they followed through with that setup.

 

[Tim Glover]

Kind of a strange past few pages or so.....I agree with Josh mostly on this. Superman in Nolan's Batman wouldn't work...at least for me.

 

[Edwin-S]

What is so hard to believe about making Bond's car "invisible"? It wasn't actually invisible, it just appeared that way. Right now, the military is actively working on active camo like the kind on that car.

Parasurfing past a satellite death ray is another story altogether.

 

[Pete-D]

Yeah, no I know that, heh, I was just requoting because that's probably what Bats would tell Superman regarding the blue/red tights his mommy made him

Regarding the more fanciful elements I think those elements are actually the least successful part of Batman Begins. Liam Neeson turns into a James Bond villain in some ways by the end with a really over-the-top scheme.

They phased out a lot of that for The Dark Knight, which is a lot grittier. Maybe that was influenced by phasing Goyer out and Nolan bringing in his brother to write TDK.

I think the third Batman will probably be more akin to TDK, though I suspect it will have a "happier" ending ... the whole thing about TDK is its always darkest before the dawn, the third film will be the dawn I think.