Batman Begins' sequel: The Dark Knight (Merged) - Page 14  

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

The Penguin could be good if it's done without too much camp. An arms dealer/mob boss is the perfect role for this character. All he needs to be is a short fat guy who wears tuxedos a lot to get the nickname "the Penguin". He doesn't have to have a wierd bird fetish or an obession with umbrellas. He certainly doesn't have to have deformed flipper hands and live with actual penguins. And for the love of all that is good and holy, he better NOT run for Mayor!

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I agree. Joker IS supposed to be over the top! Even in the Animated Series. Nichoilson was genius in the role, IMO. And even though the film gets a fair of bit of backlash now, the first "Batman" was a great movie and while I do love "Batman Begins", I am glad Burton's Batman is the version we got first in 1989.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

What, the 'or do you prefer ladies with a whip?' line wasn't considered continuity enough?

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I forgot about that one, Neil. I was thinking of the 'who let Vicki into the batcave?" ref in the second one when I wrote that.

I harped on this thru pre production on X3, and it never came to pass, but I really wish they would film 2 & 3 together- especially if they are tied closely with continuity. I think Warner may feel they got burned the last time they tried this, but as soon as the title came up on screen for the first one- who wasn't ready for a follow-up immediately? If they end the second one with Dent ripping his bandages off and freaking out, another three years for the resolution is going to be toruture.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I have a cousin who was born with one leg shorter than the other. He has a bit of a waddling gait. Not as extreme as Burgess Merediths, but I could see some one with a condition like that being labeld a 'penguin'. Also I could see the name being used as somewhat generic code if him and his associates feel they are under survellience.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Absolutely. I love Batman Begins, but I still love Batman '89 as well. I'm glad to find out I am not the only one who thinks it's still possible to enjoy both films.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

What I liked about Batman Begins, it proved you can have a Batman movie without any grossout scenes...

Penguin eating a fish raw, comes to mind.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

There definately SHOULD be some grossout scenes in the next one, if they do it right. The Joker needs to commit some truly horrific murders IMO, to show that this version of the character isn't f**king around. Harvey Dent's acid-scarring, if it's done anything like "The Long Halloween", should be a pretty intense scene as well. Not sure if that will happen at the end of this movie or the beginning of the next one, I think it would be a good "cliffhanger" ending if they're positive there's going to be a part 3.

They should definately consider shooting 2 and 3 back-to-back. It worked for Warner twice before, with LOTR (Warner owns New Line) and the Matrix, and it's sure as heck working for Disney with POTC. That would make absolutely certain that they can complete the "trilogy arc" they have planned using all the same actors. There's a lot of big names in these movies and I'd hate for one of them to become unavailable, should they decide to wait another 3 years in between the second and third film.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

If they were to do 2 and 3 back-to-back, I'd prefer that they still make each as a stand alone film that is part of a series rather than one big movie broken into two.

I think it ultimately works better for a "trilogy" to have three individual installments/stories that form a larger whole. The way they did it with the Matrix was "The Matrix" stands on it's own, and then we got ONE sequel that was just broken into two (so two Matrix stories instead of three).

So if they did this, my preference would be to have 2 and 3 conceived together and shot back to back, but the third is not a continuation of a cliffhanger from the second installment. I think that takes away from the "trilogy aspect" somewhat making the series more of a two-parter with a big second part (just in my opinion, of course). I'd rather a clearly defined beginning chapter, middle chapter, and final chapter (at least when it comes to "trilogies").

And while I like the idea of doing two back-to-back for some reasons (guaranteed third film, keep same actors, less time between films, etc...), I think that it may also be more likely to be restricting creatively.

Instead of focusing on telling one good, tight story (and just planting some seeds for a possible/likely third) and then coming back to it in a year or two creatively refreshed and ready to tell another good, tight story that is a new (final) chapter, I think they're more likely to spread one good idea out over two films and fill the rest with, well... filler. At least that is more of a risk when doing two back to back, don't you think?

The Lord of the Rings is a different animal entirely since it was from the very beginning one story that was broken into 3 books for publishing and the same model was used for the films. The films were always one big story broken into the three installments (not counting PJ's original pitch to do two films simply because he never dreamed a studio would agree to make three).

Back to the Future 2 and 3 did the back-to-back follow-ups with, in my opinion, mixed results.

While I really liked "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions", I think I would have preferred the second installment to be more self contained, with the final chapter also being a "new" story instead of just dealing with the situation started in Reloaded (oversimplified, I know, but that is the basic way it plays out as a movie). I think it may have played a little better with general audiences as well if it took the route of a sequel with a resolution/end that was satisfying (while leaving you wanting more) as opposed to ending with major questions and a cliffhanger that just picks right up in the third (or part 2B).

I didn't see Pirates of the Caribbean 2 yet, but doesn't that end on a cliffhanger as well?

So after all this rambling, I guess I'm trying to say that I don't have a big problem with them doing a 2nd and 3rd installment back-to-back as long as they keep the trilogy something that is clearly "part 1, part 2, and part 3". I wouldn't be as thrilled if they went the "part 1, part 2A, and part 2B" route like is typically done when they do them back-to-back.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

My Humble Opinion:

The Matrix and Pirates series' filmed two movies back to back, just for the sake of milking the cash cow. By that I mean that one story was stretched to make two movies, with poor results.

If the story is there, why not film them back to back?

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

But then that would mean losing the PG-13 rating, which would result in less ticket sales. Remember that superhero films are as much marketed towards kids as they are to adults (look at the merchandising for action figures, cereal, etc). I'm sure Nolan can make the Joker a disturbing character within the PG-13 rating.

I also agree that filming back to back sequels is not necessary for the Batman films. Look at the Spider-Man and Star Wars franchises as good examples.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

The way I see it, "Batman Begins" was more of a "prologue" to see if there was really interest in a new version of Batman. Hence the title, which COULD be interpreted as being a prequel to the other films since it fits the title continuity (Batman Returns/Forever/& Robin/Begins). In fact, if "Begins" had bombed theatrically I have no doubt that Warner would have shoved it in the "Batman Anthology" right along with the other films and then closed the door on theatrical Batman films pretty much forever. (It didn't hurt that "Begins" used the next two most popular villains that hadn't been covered in the first four films). But since it was successful, we're now getting a new title scheme ("The Dark Knight") and new takes on villains that were seen previously (Joker, Penguin, and Two-Face), cementing the fact that this is a new and different universe. In other words, "Begins" is the story that would have been told in the first couple pages of a comic book introduction, and "The Dark Knight" is the real start of the story.

I agree that the "stand-alone movie/two part sequel" scheme is getting mildly annoying. It makes sense from a marketing standpoint to get people back in the theater for the next one. I know that Nolan and Goyer promised not to kill the Joker off in the first movie he appeared in, so it would make sense IMO to at least get 2 Joker movies in the can while they've got all the principals together. The Two-Face story arc also depends on us caring about Harvey Dent before he gets deformed, and recasting between movies would ruin that as well. Ongoing series that depend on actors returning every two-three years take HUGE risks. Harry Potter had to replace Dumbledore (and did so unsuccessfully, in many fans' opinion), Matrix had to replace the Oracle, one of the "Narnia" kids just narrowly escaped a bombing raid, Crispin Glover had to be shot around for "Back to the Future 2" because he refused to return, Mark Hamil nearly died in a car wreck between "Star Wars" and "Empire", and on and on and on. We've finally got a near-perfect cast for this Batman series and I don't want to tempt fate.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Yeah, there are definite benefits to making two follow-up films back-to-back.

As long as they avoid the "one big movie broken into two with a cliffhanger at the end of the second installment" model, it can be a good thing.

I just feel it is ultimately more important to have two more excellent "stand alone yet part of a larger series' story" films (like Spider-Man 1, 2 and hopefully 3). If that is sacrificed for a bloated single sequel broken into two, then I'd be happy giving up the benefits of back-to-back filming to avoid that.

But yes, there is no reason they can't do both back-to-back (2&3) and have them be stand alone stories. It really is a creative choice. It just seems the trend is to do the part 2A and part 2B thing, so I'd be concerned they'd be tempted to do that.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

1) I can't even envision Batman (1989) being of the same continuity of B&R, much less Begins.

2) I don't want a POTC/BTTF-type cliffhanger. Have a contained story with ties to the next contained story. Film it as stretches the budget and creative dollar.

3) I cannot fathom how making the film R-rated would add anything to the characters. This is an adaptation of comic books designed with the younger reader in mind. PG-13 adequately covers anything a Batman film needs to show...even The Dark Knight Returns.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I think there's degrees. Some might consider the Joker card at the end of "Batman Begins" a cliffhanger, but I think that's the perfect segue into a sequel. I do agree that I don't want the third movie starting only moments after the end of the second. Have weeks or months go by, but follow up on ideas sprinkled among the second film. While I agree, I think it's mainly because the origins of superheroes are always classically underdeveloped so that they might get to the "interesting part" faster. Batman Begins, aside from its value as the first live action venture to get the character and universe trully right and as a rip-roaring good time, is important as a contrast. It was the roughest, rawest possible Batman. The Batman in the sequels can be more theatrical and smoother in execution. It also provides the opportunity, with the universe and character perfectly established, to explore other things, like a real mystery to ground the plot it. I agree. "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker" was at times a horrifying portrayal of the Joker, and there was nothing in it that — even if in live-action — that would push boundaries of PG-13. There is so much psychologically that can be done; we don't need exposed limbs and f-bombs flying all over the place.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

1). That's exactly my point. The first four Batman films are stand-alone stories with vague ties to each other. "Begins" could have been lumped in there if it hadn't been successful enough to launch a new franchise.

2). I don't especially WANT one, but if that's what they want to do to ensure people return for part 3, I won't hate it. I think Harvey's scarring would be a good cliffhanger if they do decide to go that route, but if they want to end "The Dark Knight" with the Joker's capture and open part 3 with his trial and Harvey's acid dousing, that's fine too.

3). I think there would definately be a market for an R-rated Batman, just not big enough for the feature film series. I'd love to see a Batman series with the same intensity as "The Shield", with a Vic Mackey-esque Batman and a truly pyschotic serial killer version of the Joker. In the early comics Batman killed people all the time. The whole "Batman never takes a life" thing was as much to appease the overzealous comic book censors as anything else......I'm not really sure it's the best direction for the character. Even ordinary police officers kill when they have to......why shouldn't Batman be allowed to kill someone like Ra's Al Ghul who indirectly killed his parents and is directly trying to destroy the entire city? Batman's world is not one of absolute moral black and white. I think Batman '89 handled that better than Begins did. Batman is a "hero", yes, but he's also a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights crime outside the law because he was really, really screwed up by having his parents shot in front of him. I could buy him losing it and throwing a guy off a roof every now and then.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I wasn't thinking just one big movie cut in two when I suggested that.
If the Joker is the main antagonist for the next film, that story needs to be resolved in that film (which means either he's been aprehended or he appears to be killed, preferably the former of course) and whatever his threats were are neutralized. The Two-face story would begin with him getting it in the face with the acid- which could either come as a coda at the end of the second movie, or the begining of the third.

if it comes at the end of the second film, it follws a style established with Begins, by alluding to the next chapters threat in the current films coda - an idea I think I like even more than the James Bond style pre credit sequence we are all familiar with by now. The rooftop exchange with Gordon, and the turning over of the playing card sent you out of the theater wanting to see a next (self contained) chapter asap.

But, unless they have Joker in custody fairly early in the third act (and Batman is racing around trying to prevent some chain of events he started) it would be too clunky to pull off pacing wise.

On the one hand I would love to see the coda of The Dark Knight alluded to the threat of the next film, but on the other I can see where an event like that needs more room to be set-up than a crowded third act would likely allow.
unless...
they just ignore the comic book origin almost completely and have Harvey get it at the end of the second act or the begining of the third act of the second film- while the Joker is still loose, which frankly I think would be more believable - Structured like that, Dent would have (hopefully) built up a lot of goodwill with the audience vis a vis his competence, his personality, and his friendship with the storys hero in the first two acts- so that when he is off camera for the last act of the movie, before the movie is over, we want to see some confirmation that the character is still ok, and to that end, we are all there as the bandages come off and ...BAM! The horrible reality is revealed, jump cut to black, "The Dark Knight" comes up on the screen and the house lights go up.

one advantage of having this at the end of the joker film, is that it cements the horrific nature of this particular Joker. The last image of the film we see is the horrible damage he did to a character we've come to really like. That would make a huge impact.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

That in itself is pretty sad, that no matter how sadistic the villains' actions may be, the only way to really ensure an "R" is to say "f**k" a couple times.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

A market certainly, but not enough to sustain long term interest. I disagree with your last statement. That's a simple crazy vigilante, and Batman's motivation goes much, much deeper than that. What makes him work is his ability to walk that edge, and still be what constitutes a hero. That his sheer willpower makes up for bad luck, powered villains, and numbers. The minute he throws a guy off a roof, he loses that. I personally have no interest in that Batman. I respect that you do, but I don't think it would be as cinematically satisfying.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I know that Nolan and Goyer promised not to kill the Joker off in the first movie he appeared in, so it would make sense IMO to at least get 2 Joker movies in the can while they've got all the principals together.>>>

That's one thing I liked, and didn't like about the first series. It meant that Batman was not like superman and not adverse to killing his villains...but at the same time, once they ran through the established ones, what's left? End of franchise.

>
The Two-Face story arc also depends on us caring about Harvey Dent before he gets deformed, and recasting between movies would ruin that as well. Ongoing series that depend on actors returning every two-three years take HUGE risks. Harry Potter had to replace Dumbledore (and did so unsuccessfully, in many fans' opinion), Matrix had to replace the Oracle, one of the "Narnia" kids just narrowly escaped a bombing raid, Crispin Glover had to be shot around for "Back to the Future 2" because he refused to return, Mark Hamil nearly died in a car wreck between "Star Wars" and "Empire",>>


Crispin Glover is just a nut from what I've scene and heard of him . Probably better off without him. Never saw the Matrix, been meaning to check out Potter but havn't gotten around to it yet..

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

2) I don't want a POTC/BTTF-type cliffhanger. Have a contained story with ties to the next contained story. Film it as stretches the budget and creative dollar.

>>

Alla Star Trek movies. Although, look at the big difference in the wait between the first movie, and the second. Thin Scotty vrs Fat Scotty..

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Ending the movie with the revelation of Two-Face wouldn't be anymore a cliffhanger than revealng the Joker card in BB, or Harry finding the Goblin stuff in Spidey 2. I have no problem with that. I don't really want to see a cliffhanger where the third one starts moments after "The Dark Knight."

Count me in with those that doesn't want to see Batman kill anyone. He doesn't do that, and him leaving Ra's on the train was pushing that limit to me. It didn't bother me THAT much there, because he just "didn't save him," rather than outright killing him.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Yep, that's basically the way I feel. I'd like seeds sprinkled in for the next film, I just don't want a direct continuation of the same movie's story, which should be completely resolved at the end of each movie (continue doing it just like what has been done with Spider-Man [for Spider-Man 2], Spider-Man 2 [for Spidey 3), Batman Begins [for The Dark Knight], Superman Returns [for the sequel], Superman; The Motion picture [for Superman 2], X-Men, X2, etc... and that'll be peachy).

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

The other issue with filming back to back is that it really doesn't allow for feedback to the filmmakers on what worked and what might be improved. BB was a great movie, but I'm sure once everything was finished Goyer and Nolan had several areas they would agree that would be improved on and applied to a sequel. If another movie was already finished with principal photography at that point it really ties their hands a bit.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Is this set for a 07 or 2008 release?

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Most likely Summer 08.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

I believe it's 2008, Tim.

Spidey 3: 2007
The Dark Knight: 2008
Superman: 2009 *crosses fingers*

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Thanks Bryan & Travis


Amen to that!

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

Yes, it's summer 2008 at the earliest. Filming won't start until early 2007.

Re: Batman Begins' sequel (Merged)

What a lineup. I can't wait for the next 3 summers.

JC