The Official "The Dark Knight" Speculation Thread (Possible Spoilers) [Archive]

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 01:45 AM

I think we can say with fair certainty that the Joker will be the main villain in "Batman 6". Not only is it hinted at by the end of this movie, both Nolan and Goyer have said this. It's also said to reintroduce Harvey Dent and closely look at the Gotham City crime-fighting triumvirate: Batman, Gordon, and Dent, just as in THE LONG HALLOWEEN.

As for when it comes out - I was under the impression that these movies were going to be made every three years, much like the original Batman series started. It would be a lot of fun as a fan to see this movie take Spider-Man 3 on head-to-head, though...

Rumour to jour: IMDB.com reported that, in addition to the Crispin Glover rumours, Mark Hamill is being rumoured to play the Joker - thanks to us fans. We all know he has the voice, but do you really think that a man with his look would be convincing in this role? He's a little old to play the Joker, too; yes, I know that Jack Nicholson was probably even older when he had his shot, but we're aiming for a complete makeover here.

One thing is for certain, though - if Hamill does get the role, and does it well, the movie will be huge. Just imagine all the Star Wars nuts out there coming out of the woodwork to see if ol' Luke Skywalker can finally break his stereotype - it'd be interesting to see. ;)

Anyway, as for this thread - when I suggested it, I didn't really seriously mean it. That said, I'm sure that when BATMAN BEGINS proves to be a huge financial success - it's already a critical success - the WB will start humming and hawing more seriously over the sequels.

Christian Bale is signed on for three movies, and I was under the understanding that both Michael Caine and Gary Oldman are, as well. Morgan Freeman suggested that even though he was signed on for only one picture, he'd come back in a heartbeat if asked.

For the sake of continuity, I'd like to see Katie Holmes come back, too. There's no reason she shouldn't be in the next movie, especially since the DA's office will be front and centre again, what, with Harvey Dent apparently playing one of the major supporting roles. He'll likely end up being Rachel Dawes' boss, now that it would appear her BATMAN BEGINS boss, Carlton Finch, was murdered.

As for the others that could return - Scarecrow, Zsasz, Falcone - it'd be cool if they did, at least in bit parts. Falcone, if he is in fact still sane at the end of BATMAN BEGINS, would work seemlessly into Harvey Dent's origin story, and Mr. Zsasz is a perfect background character. As much as I love the Scarecrow, I'd much rather hold off on him until he gets the chance to become the main villain of a movie.

The REAL question is...will Chris Nolan return? He and David Goyer came up with a prospective three-picture story plan, but neither of them are officially committed to anything beyond BATMAN BEGINS.

Either way, I'm already excited for 2008!

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 09:25 AM

today we will find out if it will be financially worthy of a sequel; my money's on two years. that seems to be the rate at which most franchises go once they start to pick up steam.

Ordinary Guy

06-16-2005, 10:59 AM

The only question I have is.

Do you think we will see Harley Quinn and who would be perfect to play her.

A couple of years back I would've said Cameron Diaz, but now mabye Brittany Murphy.

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 11:06 AM

i dont think well be seeing harley; it'd be weird if hamill ended up as the joker and someone new was harley...if i had to chose, though, renee zelwegger, or whatever her name is.

Andy Mancini

06-16-2005, 12:29 PM

I would love to see Mark Hamill reprise (sort of) his role as the Joker. Yes, he is a little old, but that really shouldn't matter. As for Harley, I'm thinking Sarah Michelle Gellar. Not only does she look the part, she has the talent to pull off the "wacky homicidal sidekick role." Now Harvey Dent... I have no idea. Thomas Haden Church would be great, especially considering that the same actor will probably have to play Two-Face as well, but he's a bit old. I also don't see Falcone being the major mob boss in town, thanks in part to what happens to him in the first movie. If anything, I see Robbie Coltrane as Rupert Thorne (or a Thorne-esque character), who is mainly there to send Dent on the last train to nutsville.

Batman's Biggest Fan

06-16-2005, 12:44 PM

Well Mark Hamill I feel is the only actor from the animated series who could play the role in live action. I mean if anything they should at least let him do the voice of the Joker like Birds of Prey did. Anyway, I expect Christian Bale, Katie Holmes, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman to be approached for deals of three movies. And if they decide to include Harley, then maybe Sarah Michelle Gellar could play her (I hear she auditoned for Rachael Dawes) I don't know who could play Two-Face.

Harley_Quinn

06-16-2005, 01:45 PM

Do you think we will see Harley Quinn and who would be perfect to play her.

A couple of years back I would've said Cameron Diaz, but now mabye Brittany Murphy.
I personally would never wanna see Harley on the screen. Mainly because she is a very comic bookish character, I just don't think it'll translate to screen very well given the serious tone of the first and, hopefully, future films.

It would be so awesome to see Hamil as the Joker in a live action flick! Glover would also be a good choice.

As for Dent/Two face I've always thought that Guy Pearce would be perfect for the role.

sdp

06-16-2005, 01:48 PM

Even if it's serious the Joker is a comical character so i think it could work. Mark Hammil would make A GREAT joker, i'd love to see that.

Patrick Bateman

06-16-2005, 02:06 PM

Nolan and Goyer are far too smart to use Harley in these films. As I've stated numerous times before, her sheer presence detracts from The Joker's. Once she was introduced into the comics with him, his character got absolutely stale. I'm hoping that The Joker we see in the next film will be in classic vein of The Killing Joke. Dark, twisted, tragic, and shamefully humorous.

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 02:15 PM

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 02:17 PM

I have no qualms with Harley being in the new movie series; my only concern is WHEN she's introduced. For example, I want the Joker's first appearance in this series to be a solo one - give us a classic Joker (as BY1 said, a la "The Killing Joke") first. That's what most people want. I wouldn't mind, however, if there is a doctor at Harleen Quinzel that happens to be working at Arkham in the background; hell, for all we know, she could have worked there at Arkham in BATMAN BEGINS, but was never featured. As an Arkham doctor, she'd translate very nicely to screen.

I still think that, given the right script (a more tragic script, a la MAD LOVE, instead of a routine Harley outing), she'd do quite well on screen. Even so, I don't want to see her putting on her leotards until well after this movie comes out - let's say, "Batman 10" or so at the very earliest.

I'm more concerned with ensuring that the Joker and Two-Face will be handled correctly. Neither of which have had their TRUE characters developed in live action before; Joker came pretty close by all counts, and Two-Face was a cartoon of his real self.

I thank Nolan and Goyer for immediately wanting to go back and give Batman's best two villains the best treatment he can - they deserve it. It's much better than, say, seeing Poison Ivy or the Penguin be the major baddie of the second movie or something. :p

-Tim

PS - Hmmm...you think that the Penguin could factor into the movie series successfully? I think that if he's set up at a "legitimate" businessman from the get-go, running his Iceberg Lounge as a front for criminal activity, and all that, he'd be a great supporting character for a string of movies. That I wouldn't mind seeing.

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 03:10 PM

Spongebrain2.0

06-16-2005, 03:56 PM

ah, i could see a live action mad love-ish story working beautifuly on film. that's be so cool, having Mark Hamill as the Joker in it...

Well, I think WB will do some serious thinking on whether they should not do another one or to do another one, because the opening day was just pretty bad and pretty good at the same time.

It did $15 million..on a Wednesday. That is not bad, I predict it to finish with about $150-170 million, & an opening weekend of $50 million or so.

Style

06-16-2005, 04:20 PM

Heh, I remember when $20 million for a whole weekend was considered "nothing to sneeze at." $15 million Wednesday isn't bad, (were you seriously expecting "Star Wars" numbers?) But it will be the weekend haul the determines time frames and budget for the sequal, and could make or break or DC projects in the pipeline, like Wonderwoman, Flash, and Green Lantern.

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 04:24 PM

i just meant with that enormous budget, and i hear the rule of thumb is that you have to make back twice what you spend to break even with movies because of what the theatres keep and promotional stuff. i suppose with overseas grosses it will be fine.

i was just thinking also that WB doesn't really have a lot of hit franchises right now, does it? i guess they will probably keep making Batmans, it's all they have at the moment, except Harry Potter.

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 05:30 PM

It did $15 million..on a Wednesday. That is not bad, I predict it to finish with about $150-170 million, & an opening weekend of $50 million or so.
I'm still saying BATMAN BEGINS will get $100 Mill or so by the end of the weekend; that's in five days, and the big days will be Friday and Saturday. I intend to see it again, of course - I'm doing my part. :D

As for overall gross, I'm still counting on $350 Mill by summer's end. This movie has better legs for the adult crowds than other big-budget action and/or superhero movies of the past.

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 05:33 PM

i think it should have good legs, but i really don't see it getting farther than say $200 million, probably a little less. that's just me.

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 05:44 PM

i think it should have good legs, but i really don't see it getting farther than say $200 million, probably a little less. that's just me.
The first Batman movie made $251 Mill domestic in 1989 - and those numbers aren't even adjusted for inflation. I can see BATMAN BEGINS easily matching that, considering all the hype behind it - especially here on the net.

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 05:49 PM

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 05:57 PM

but Batman 89 was so new and fresh then; batman had never seriously been done and it was something nobody had seen before and superheros hadn't been done well for a while; i think that it's sort of the Spider-man of that generation.

I can only say that i certainly hope you are right.
That is definitely true. However, this BATMAN BEGINS movie is like a fresh restart for the series - this is the sort of movie most fans, be they die hard comic lovers or the general public, wanted to see. It's new and fresh, as well. It's not a complete 180 degree turn from the public concepcion of the character (as BATMAN 1989 was), but still, this is what we wanted. It will be successful.

I'm convinced of that.

The only thing that could deter the numbers from being as high as I hope is the fact that the movie isn't as kid-friendly...which, while true, it's not that disturbing or gory or violent or anything like that. It's theme and tone aren't as dark and grisly as BATMAN RETURNS.

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 06:09 PM

that is the one thing i thought leaving the theater is that i was shocked how un kid-friendly the movie was. I am glad because i think it helps the movie in some areas, but i feel sad about it also because i remember loving batman so much as a really little kid and felt bad that some kids wouldn't get to experience that. there was a really young kid in a seat in the theatre where i was, couldn't have been more than five or six, in a full batman halloween costume, very cute. he was clearly bored for the first half of the movie and then started crying when the scarecrow came on. i don't think it was so much the scariness of the image but the scariness of the extremely sudden loud noise (that got a bit old i must admit), but i'm sure it will have bad word-of-mouth in that area and most parents probably won't want to take their kids. but then again, i always feel that little kids are a heck of a lot smarter and braver than some people give them credit for, and I'm sure there will be some kid fans. this worries me though: the lack of kid-friendliness and downright darkness in Batman Returns got an extremely bad reaction from parents (Burton discusses this a lot in his book "Burton on Burton") and I think that this is what sent it down on the road to campiness and Schumacher. kids loved Batman Forever (I was one of them, not as crazy about it now). I hope this doesn't happen with this new franchise. You are right, it will be sucessful. the only question is "how sucessful?"

Space Cadet

06-16-2005, 06:20 PM

mookie75

06-16-2005, 06:45 PM

I haven't seen the new Batman yet, but I heard the Mark Hamill rumor on the radio this morning.

Does this mean that these Batman Begins movies are not meant to exist in the same timeline as the other movies? After all, we see the Joker created AND killed in the first Burton film......

I would love to see Hamill play the part since he did the voice so well for all those years in the cartoons.

EDIT: Ahh, I see this is covered a little in the "not a prequel" thread. However, feel free to add any comments you feel are important. :anime:

Style

06-16-2005, 06:52 PM

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 06:53 PM

Yes, these film(s) take place in a different continuity than the first four. Unfortunately, that message hasn't been spread to everyone, and there were several things in Begins that conflicted with Batman 1989, and the audience I was with seemed very confused...I certainly hope that the Mark Hamill rumor is true as well.

Wing Zero

06-16-2005, 08:12 PM

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 08:26 PM

I agree--it'd be great for Conroy to have a cameo.
I just really hope Mark gets this role.

I feel bad saying that because I'd love to see Chrispin Glover in the role as well.

As long as one of them gets it, I'll be happy

TimTwoFace

06-16-2005, 09:50 PM

I think Kevin Conroy should get a cameo or small part in the next Batman movie. He has been the definitive voice for Batman for more than a decade and it'd be nice to see the man instead of just hearing the voice. If that Mark Hamil rumor is true, it would be quite cool to see those two on screen, even if it's just for a second. Maybe Conroy can be a cop who assists Gordon or something.
Yeah, giving props to all of the older Batmen would be a nice touch, as long as their presence didn't detract from the film. Only us diehards would notice Conroy, so that would work out nicely. I'd love to see Michael Keaton, especially, return as a character - villain, preferably - because I love his quirky style of acting.

Hell, Adam West could (and SHOULD) return in these movies in some sort of role; I'm still amazed that he didn't get a cameo in the first four, honestly. If the writers wanted to do a different take on Clayface, Adam West could be a great choice. Just think - he's a washed up, aging, has-been actor, who has now been typecast, and he's experimenting with that new drug to regain his youthful look, etc, etc...just like in the animated series. But this time, it's Adam West. The man CAN actually act, too; I'd love to see just what he can do in a non-campy Batman setting. He was great in his guest-shots on both BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES and THE BATMAN, so why not try him out in live action? Personally, I'd love to see Clayface be the major villain (or one of the major villains) in the fourth movie, after the Joker and Two-Face get their turn. He's a great villain with a great tragic backstory, one that most of the general public doesn't know about, and by that time, it could prove to be the most amazing CGI work in history.

What do ya'll think?

-Tim

BatKid

06-16-2005, 11:46 PM

Obviously this film will feature Joker and Harvey as newcomers (I'm hopin' we see Selina Kyle in the very least). I've had tons of actors rummagin' through my head for old Joker, some of which consist of Law, Gallo, Glover, Depp, and Cassel:

http://img55.echo.cx/img55/2937/joker2es.gif

Silly McGooses

06-16-2005, 11:56 PM

hmm...i don't think i like him. has anyone done one of Crispin Glover? :confused:

BatKid

06-17-2005, 12:04 AM

I've seen plenty, but none that were amazing. BTW, what's wrong with Cassel? Too old for ya? :p

Silly McGooses

06-17-2005, 12:09 AM

idunno...the pic bugs me. maybe it's a little TOO scary.

I think I speak for a lot of people who don't even realize it-
If they make a second one, they REALLY should NOT put Robin in it. In fact, forget about Robin for the whole franchise. He is a pointless distraction when you are trying to do a gritty, real, dark version of Batman and he invariably kiddiefies things. It'd be awful.

BatKid

06-17-2005, 12:16 AM

Don't even break a sweat. As long as Bale (who has already placed his dislike of Robin) and Nolan are around, Robin will be nowhere near this.

And that scary comment...I'm sure that adds to how Cassel would be great for the part. ;)

Bruce Kent

06-17-2005, 12:41 AM

Lachy Hulme for Joker! Mark Hammil has a great voice but he isn't The Joker. He doesn't look the part. It would be unbelievable and dissapointing.

Liev Schriber is being considered for Harvey Dent.. I wouldn't mind him or Guy Pearce.

I want to see Selina Kyle too.

Edit - Also, Batkid, where do you get these pics?

Casey Mack

06-17-2005, 02:31 AM

sdp

06-17-2005, 02:38 AM

A nother thing that might hurt sales is the flood of superhero movies, sure they're all Marvel, but most people don't know the difference between Marvel and DC...or movie studios for that matter...

Silly McGooses

06-17-2005, 08:20 AM

that Crispin Glover guy is a good Choice fora live action joker. Oh and can we stop with the Mark hamil Nonsense hes a voice actor not a live action version of the joker! should they have gotten Kevin conroy instead of Bale? ....please:shrug: .
no, but the Joker's appearance has never really been defined, but everyone knows Batman has to be tall and strong and brooding, which...i dont think Kevin Conroy is, so you have a point. But, The Joker is much more open for interpretation and He actually looks quite a bit look The Joker sometimes does in the comics.

It'd be cool to see a live-action "Long Halloween" Joker, though I don't think'd be possible to do. Those teeth!:anime:

Simpler Simon

06-17-2005, 09:37 AM

If Jack Nicholson could pull off Joker with his age and completely opposite physical build, I'm sure Hamil would do just fine. He's even had over a decade to fine-tune his performance, after all. But there's also lots of capable actors out there who can do Joker, so fanboyish reasons aside going with someone new might be a better choice.

Really hoping Rachel comes back for another film - I know most critics and posters here called her the weak link in the cast, but I thought she brought a lot more to the table than she's given credit for. Plus it'd be nice to sustain a love interest for the series, instead of the Bond girl syndrome (Catwoman and Talia are the only ones I could see replacing Rachel). BTW, I read O'Neil's novelization, and it mentions that Rachel was promoted to department head, replacing her boss. Was this mentioned onscreen or not?

Harley_Quinn

06-17-2005, 10:17 AM

The first Batman movie made $251 Mill domestic in 1989 - and those numbers aren't even adjusted for inflation. I can see BATMAN BEGINS easily matching that, considering all the hype behind it - especially here on the net.

-Tim
and also the critical reviews have been glowing as well! As for the kid friendly discussion, I the teenage crowd will drive this flick, not the small children.

This film will do great and word of mouth will give it great legs

Harley_Quinn

06-17-2005, 10:22 AM

Simpler Simon

06-17-2005, 12:54 PM

Was there a reason Gordon was portrayed as a Sargeant and not a Lieutenant? You'd think they'd want to get him to Commish while the franchise is still viable. Unless he gets promoted to Captain between films, that could take awhile.

Also means that Loeb will probably have to die, which kinda sucks. He was corrupt in the comics, but here he seems more like the current Commish Michael Akins from the comics.

Other things I want to see: a slightly more furnished Batcave, with some computers and a lab setup. A ramp entrance would also be smart, but I kinda like how the batmobiles forced to jump through the waterfall.

Mike Spartz

06-17-2005, 01:52 PM

Jude Law would make a perfect Joker. All he needs to do is lose a little weight to bring out his cheekbones a little more.

Brittney Murphy is the only actress who I think can pull off Harley Quinn. She was nutty enough in Just Married with the actor who played Kelso on That 70's Show.

TimTwoFace

06-21-2005, 01:26 AM

IMDB.com has just broken the first casting rumour for BATMAN 6:

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-06-21/#2

Christian Bale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/), Michael Caine (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000323/) and Morgan Freeman (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000151/) have signed to star in a second Batman movie, but love interest Katie Holmes (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005017/) has been dropped. Movie bosses are thrilled with the response to Batman Begins (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/) - it took $46.9 million in its first weekend at the US box office - and have snapped up the film's stars for a sequel. Bale as Batman was the first to put pen to paper, followed by Caine as butler Alfred and Freeman as Bruce Wayne's business associate Lucius Fox. But Holmes won't reprise her role as district attorney Rachel Dawes - reportedly because Warner Bros is angry her engagement to Tom Cruise (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000129/) has stolen media attention away from the movie. A source tells Pagesix.Com, "Everyone is in agreement that the movie's strength is with Christian Bale (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000288/), Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman." Adding of Holmes, "She won't be in the sequel... the next romantic interest will be a much stronger actress. Warner is happy that people are now focusing on who'll be playing the Joker rather than Katie and Tom."

Well, she sure shot herself in the foot on that one. I know love must conquer all, and all that, but she could've had both if she wasn't detracting from the movie; I'm sure that this relationship had turned some people away from BATMAN BEGINS, just as it will for WAR OF THE WORLDS, too.

So I guess that means we'll definitely need a new District Attorney (or assistant DA) in the sequel. Hmmm, I wonder who that will be?

-Tim

PS - I still wanted Holmes back, personally - for both the sake of continuity and to play the role of a victim that meant something. When you think about it, not many people actually DIED in BATMAN BEGINS; insane yes, death, no. She would've been a good Joker-or-Two-Face victim, thanks to her connections with Bruce, Gordon, the law, etc. Ah well.

PPS - So I guess this means Freeman is definitely back for a sequel? Sweet, that means we have Bale, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman back for sure. That's a huge start, right there.

Jack Naiper

06-21-2005, 01:43 AM

Bruce Kent

06-21-2005, 02:01 AM

IMDB.com has just broken the first casting rumour for BATMAN 6:

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-06-21/#2

Well, she sure shot herself in the foot on that one. I know love must conquer all, and all that, but she could've had both if she wasn't detracting from the movie; I'm sure that this relationship had turned some people away from BATMAN BEGINS, just as it will for WAR OF THE WORLDS, too.

So I guess that means we'll definitely need a new District Attorney (or assistant DA) in the sequel. Hmmm, I wonder who that will be?

-Tim

PS - I still wanted Holmes back, personally - for both the sake of continuity and to play the role of a victim that meant something. When you think about it, not many people actually DIED in BATMAN BEGINS; insane yes, death, no. She would've been a good Joker-or-Two-Face victim, thanks to her connections with Bruce, Gordon, the law, etc. Ah well.

PPS - So I guess this means Freeman is definitely back for a sequel? Sweet, that means we have Bale, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman back for sure. That's a huge start, right there.
This news is great. Sorry for Holmes, but I'm glad she's been dropped...

The Clown Prince

06-21-2005, 02:59 AM

This is a paragraph from an article up at Box Office Mojo with Warner Bros. head of distribution Dan Fellman...

"I think people love the character, and it's been eight years since the franchise unfortunately took a negative turn [with Batman and Robin (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batmanrobin.htm)]," Warner Bros.' head of distribution Dan Fellman told Box Office Mojo. "It took the vision of a filmmaker like Christopher Nolan (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=christophernolan.htm) to bring it back, with a great script and cast. We're well positioned moving forward with the summer. We're going to have a first week of $85 million, and [Batman and Robin] had $59 million. That's enough to bring Batman back for a sequel."
To read the rest of the article which includes numbers and stats from the past Batman movies, click here (http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=1837&p=.htm).

The Clown Prince

Silly McGooses

06-21-2005, 11:23 AM

About the Katie Holmes thing, I didn't really like her, but I'm annoyed that we still have no love intrest for bruce that lasts for more than one movie. bruce, you womanizer!

Youko Recca

06-21-2005, 11:39 AM

I don't know about that, I keep wondering why they give Batman a women to be involved with. I always figured he would be too busy and it would detract from what he felt needed to be done throughout Gotham.

BonyT

06-21-2005, 11:40 AM

Was there a reason Gordon was portrayed as a Sargeant and not a Lieutenant?Isn't that kind of in line with Batman: Year One? Didn't Gordon just make Lieutenant only at the end of Year One, just like in Begins?

Adding of Holmes, "She won't be in the sequel... the next romantic interest will be a much stronger actress. Warner is happy that people are now focusing on who'll be playing the Joker rather than Katie and Tom." Well, I guess this is something somebody leaked & not an official WB press release; but still, Tim, does this sentence give you any ... pause about the authenticity of the quote? As NightFlower pointed out in the other short-lived thread that was focused on this quote, it seems like an awfully unprofessional thing for WB to say, even if it's not exactly an official statement.

And what about Gary Oldman? Just GOTTA have him back as Gordon.

Also, I'm wondering (and I haven't read the whole thread by any means, so I apologize if this has already been addressed): why exactly does the prevailing logic of this thread consider Begins to be "Batman 5" and it's sequels to be "Batman 6," "7," etc.? To me, at least, such numbering implies a continuity that, in fact, does NOT actually exist between Begins and the previous four films.

Bruce Kent

06-21-2005, 11:47 AM

Isn't that kind of in line with Batman: Year One? Didn't Gordon just make Lieutenant only at the end of Year One, just like in Begins?

Well, I guess this is something somebody leaked & not an official WB press release; but still, Tim, does this sentence give you any ... pause about the authenticity of the quote? As NightFlower pointed out in the other short-lived thread that was focused on this quote, it seems like an awfully unprofessional thing for WB to say, even if it's not exactly an official statement.

Also, I'm wondering (and I haven't read the whole thread by any means, so I apologize if this has already been addressed): why exactly does the prevailing logic of this thread consider Begins to be "Batman 5" and it's sequels to be "Batman 6," "7," etc.? To me, at least, such numbering implies a continuity that, in fact, does NOT actually exist between Begins and the previous four films.
I agree. We should relinquish the Batman 6 stuff...

JLU Dude

06-21-2005, 11:57 AM

I kinda has the same reaction: "What has their love ife got to do with the movie?" and "There's one old tradition from the old movies: The one movie per love interest." It stinks. I'm kinda in the middle about her protrayal, but I've liked her back in the sequel.

Isn't that kind of in line with Batman: Year One? Didn't Gordon just make Lieutenant only at the end of Year One, just like in Begins?
Actually in Year One, he started Lieutenant and ended as a Captain.

And what about Gary Oldman? Just GOTTA have him back as Gordon.
Argeed.:anime: :)

Also, I'm wondering (and I haven't read the whole thread by any means, so I apologize if this has already been addressed): why exactly does the prevailing logic of this thread consider Begins to be "Batman 5" and it's sequels to be "Batman 6," "7," etc.? To me, at least, such numbering implies a continuity that, in fact, does NOT actually exist between Begins and the previous four films.[/QUOTE]
Also argeed.:)

Nightflower

06-21-2005, 01:17 PM

IMDB.com has just broken the first casting rumour for BATMAN 6:

http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2005-06-21/#2

Well, she sure shot herself in the foot on that one. I know love must conquer all, and all that, but she could've had both if she wasn't detracting from the movie; I'm sure that this relationship had turned some people away from BATMAN BEGINS, just as it will for WAR OF THE WORLDS, too.

So I guess that means we'll definitely need a new District Attorney (or assistant DA) in the sequel. Hmmm, I wonder who that will be?

-Tim

PS - I still wanted Holmes back, personally - for both the sake of continuity and to play the role of a victim that meant something. When you think about it, not many people actually DIED in BATMAN BEGINS; insane yes, death, no. She would've been a good Joker-or-Two-Face victim, thanks to her connections with Bruce, Gordon, the law, etc. Ah well.

PPS - So I guess this means Freeman is definitely back for a sequel? Sweet, that means we have Bale, Caine, Freeman, and Oldman back for sure. That's a huge start, right there. As I mentioned in the other thread, that sounds like an incredibly unbelievable rumor. If Katie Holmes isn't in the next film, it's probably due to other reasons (Other commitments or just not fitting the plot) and not due to coverage of her freaking love life. Also as I mentioned earlier, off-the-record or not, "She won't be in the sequel... the next romantic interest will be a much stronger actress" is extremely unprofessional for a spokesperson to say.

John6777

06-21-2005, 02:00 PM

Well I think Katie is out only because her character was such a throwaway character. Also Critics and Fans alike have said that Katie was the worse thing about the movie. I am sure they are taking all of this into consideration. Besides don't you want to see Talia in the movie? lol. Crosses fingers for Monica Bellucci as Talia.

As for Joker I still say Crispin Glover hands down no one else. But if any of the actors can't get the laugh down then Mark Hamil should be called in for the laugh just like in "Birds of Prey".

As for Harley i dont want her but if she is picked then I want Mercedes Mcnab as Harley Quinn or Ellen Pompeo.

Hatter

06-21-2005, 02:11 PM

Can we please stop with pushing for Hamill as Joker? I love the guy, but his Joker only works in animation. His Joker voice is too over-the-top for live-action, and I doubt that's the angle they'll be going for. Hearing that voice coming out of Hamill's body would be quite underwhelming.
Internet fanboy casting only goes so far.

Stu

06-21-2005, 02:36 PM

I highly doubt they've dismissed the return of Racheal already, the film hasn't even been released yet, and the sequel is nowhere near ready to change the romantic lead. Personally, I thought Holmes was fine in the role, and hope to see her return. Given how, Catwoman aside, all of the romantic leads in pre Begins Batman sucked terribly, I think she did an exceptional job.

I'll fix the thread title too, as this movie isn't connected to the previous franchises.

BonyT

06-21-2005, 03:12 PM

Actually in Year One, he started Lieutenant and ended as a Captain.Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the correction, JLDude :) . Been quite a few years since I read Y1.

I highly doubt they've dismissed the return of Racheal already, the film hasn't even been released yet, and the sequel is nowhere near ready to change the romantic lead. Personally, I thought Holmes was fine in the role, and hope to see her return. Given how, Catwoman aside, all of the romantic leads in pre Begins Batman sucked terribly, I think she did an exceptional job.I was thinking the same thing about Holmes' performance. And besides, her character has some reason for being there aside from just providing love interest for Bruce. It would make a nice transition if she's working with her new boss in the DA's office, Harvey Dent, in the sequel -- and indeed, I think it would work quite well if she's the one who's really responsible for bringing Dent into the fold as a Batman ally.

I'll fix the thread title too, as this movie isn't connected to the previous franchises.Wow -- I complain about Begins being called "Batman 5" before I leave for lunch, and that same afternoon, the thread title gets changed! Thanks, Stu, for making TZ second to none in customer service. ;)

BatKid

06-21-2005, 04:04 PM

Between now and mid '06, I wouldn't take ANY rumors to heart. It's still way too early for anything to be even considered. One thing's for sure though, ALL the actors in BB have said in interviews that they'd willingly oblige for a sequel (Bale and Caine are the only ones signed up for 3 films). So, take it as you will.

sdp

06-21-2005, 04:10 PM

I didn't like that the movie had so much attention on Katie, she just didn't add anything, but now ater putting her all over the screen and just taking her away 100% is dumb IMO , you introduce a character and put them all over the movie and then nothing :/

Phantasm

06-21-2005, 04:39 PM

Am I the only one who doesn't take that above excerpt seriously. Stating blatantly outloud that Katie can't be in the sequel because of Tom Cruise is so unproffesional...I doubt any reliable source would really say that.

Chibi Kageboshi

06-21-2005, 04:43 PM

i never expecting katie to come back, the ending was kind of a goodbye between rachel and bruce to me.

TimTwoFace

06-21-2005, 05:14 PM

Well, I guess this is something somebody leaked & not an official WB press release; but still, Tim, does this sentence give you any ... pause about the authenticity of the quote? As NightFlower pointed out in the other short-lived thread that was focused on this quote, it seems like an awfully unprofessional thing for WB to say, even if it's not exactly an official statement.
I agree entirely. Take it with a grain of salt, folks - I was just forwarding a link that I saw at IMDB. Of course, at the same time, I can totally see something of this ilk being true, despite its lack of professionality.

Also, I'm wondering (and I haven't read the whole thread by any means, so I apologize if this has already been addressed): why exactly does the prevailing logic of this thread consider Begins to be "Batman 5" and it's sequels to be "Batman 6," "7," etc.? To me, at least, such numbering implies a continuity that, in fact, does NOT actually exist between Begins and the previous four films.
Well, it seems as if it's already been changed - but it was my understand that this would be the sixth Batman movie; whether it's in the same continuity as the previous four or not - which we know it's not - is a moot point in that regard. I just assumed we would treat this like the Bond folks, do; until a title is finalized, they're just known as "Bond 19, Bond 20, Bond 21", etc...are they all in the same continuity? (Honestly, I don't know...)

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-21-2005, 05:35 PM

well, seventh movie or eighth movie, depending on who you ask

Simpler Simon

06-21-2005, 06:01 PM

As another of the brave few who actually liked Katie Holmes in the movie, I'd be very disappointed if they didn't get her back for the sequel. The whole 'childhood sweethearts' angle is perfect fodder for a tragic romance ala Andrea Beaumont, and it'd be a shame if they didn't follow up on that.

I would have expected Caine, Freeman, and Oldman to be in the next movie anyway - they all had fun with the first one and respect the material and director, so there's no reason they wouldn't come back.

Gpoliceman

06-21-2005, 08:55 PM

Hello

I didn't mind Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes character in Batman Begins. I thought her character was important in keeping Bruce's character from stepping over the edge and into the realm of vengeance. She gave him a level head. She reminded me of what a young Harvey Dent would be like. I thought the last scene with her kissing Bruce was a tad bit tacked on, but then again, I'm glad they brought up another aspect of Bruce's character. That unlike Superman and Spiderman, who "win the girl", Bruce is destined to die alone. Like they said "bruce wayne is the mask, batman is the real face of the man".

As for a sequel...

I hope Katie Holmes' character returns. I hope the entire cast from the first one returns, even Falcone. I think a Falcone should be used to throw the acid at Harvey Dent which turns him into Two-Face (it's been rumored Two-Face will be the villain of a third Batman Begins movie).

Anyhow...

If the Joker is the villain in the second movie, I think the best thing they can do with Katie Holmes' character is HAVE THE JOKER KILL HER. Don't kill her immediately. Let her die in the middle of the second movie. Let's get to know her character more, let's get to care about her, let's see her take more action. Then let the Joker murder her. Think about it. What is the Joker? The Joker is the villain that tries to push Batman over the edge. Batman walks a fine line. The Joker wants to drive him insane. That's why, in the comics, the Joker gets all the good murders. He's killed Jason Todd, Gordon's wife, and he crippled Barbara Gordon. That's the purpose of the Joker: To be an unpredictable unhomocidal madman who complements Batman's character by exploring the fine line he walks. Joker wants to push Batman into insanity, so let the Joker kill someone close to him: Rachel Dawes.

That's what they should do.

Greg

TimTwoFace

06-21-2005, 09:09 PM

I think the best thing they can do with Katie Holmes' character is HAVE THE JOKER KILL HER.
That's an idea - it's one I've come up with, too. Or, you can save her and we can always find a reason for Two-Face to bump her off in the third movie. Either way, she's gotten the words "perfect victim" branded on her forehead - and it can be a very crucial scene whenever it happens.

I'd much rather that than just write her out; I mean, there's no reason for her to just get up and leave at the end of BATMAN BEGINS - she still has a job to do. Besides, if she's dead, Bruce's secret is safer. :D

-Tim

Silly McGooses

06-21-2005, 10:10 PM

i agree about katie being a good "victim"

in the words of bruce timm "the fans are a bloodthirsty bunch":D

EDIT: WOOT! My 777th post!:p

Storm

06-22-2005, 12:40 AM

I never trust IMDB's so-called news so I highly doubt Holmes is getting the door. I actually enjoyed the role of Rachel Dawes because she wasn't the typical love interest like Mary Jane in the Spider-Man movies she had more depth and had a cause: to stop Gotham's endless corruption. Her role in Begins was very different from all of the other female leads. She wasn't damsel in distress... she held her own. If Katie Holmes does sign on for a sequel I wouldn't mind seeing her as one of Bruce's contacts for help (and possible "victim") but when it comes to main love interest category... that spot belongs to either Selina Kyle or Talia. As for the main villain... it's definitely Joker. I don't want to see Harley Quinn... yet. The Joker is meant to be a solo act. He's much better that way. The ending was priceless and was an open door for Mista J's involvement in the sequel. I wouldn't mind seeing Dr. Crane again either.

- Storm

Patrick Bateman

06-22-2005, 02:02 AM

I *so* want to see Two-Face knock Rachel off.

BatKid

06-22-2005, 10:29 AM

In..what sense...:eek:

:evil:

Azrael24

06-22-2005, 02:29 PM

lol!:anime:

wouldnt it be cool if they brought kevin conroy in as the grey ghost!? just a thought.

as for rachel, i thought she was an intersting character. like someone said above, she kept bruce from crossing the line. and i would love to see something tragic happen to her.

DisneyBoy

06-22-2005, 02:53 PM

I really disliked Katie's presence in the first film because it really had nothing to do with anything. She was a random female character written in to be fighting the good fight (Like Vicki Vale and Chase Meridian) all the while falling for Bruce/Batman, getting a trip to the cave, playing the helpless victim and then vanishing at the end. The fact that they took this stereotypical character and made her young Bruce's Best friend only added insult to injury for me.

So I'm conflicted as to how she should be ousted. If they kill her, she'll become some big tragic character, and honestly she doesn't deserve that much attention. If they just leave her out of the next movie, then they're proving that she was just as dispensable as the other females love interests before her. Even though we all know she is, I still don't want that kind of laziness being a part of this franchise, which looks to be off to an interesting start.

When I think back to when I first heard about Katie's character, I kept hoping that she would be Talia in disguise, and spent the entire movie waiting and hoping that twist would materialize (even if she'd be a crummy Talia) simply because I hated the idea of yet another lame lady getting screentime. Since she isn't Talia, and none of the other plans make any sense, the best thing to do is corrupt her. Don't Mary-Jane her people...she's a NOBODY to the Batman world, and really needs to get lost. The only interesting thing to do with the character is make her less likeable in our eyes before having her fade out of the picture, instead of playing up the "first love/first woman to know his secret" angle that's insanely nauseating. Let's see her fall under some intense pressure in the next film, and have to make some practical decisions about her future. Play ball with the crooks by stepping down as DA (or whatever she is) and then leaving town, with Bruce totally disgusted with her, and peeved that the city seems to be corrupting those around him. Then, we can all forget about her, and Katie can go suck face with Tom until the cows come home.

Here's a question about the upcoming sequels...are they going to keep "updating" the cave, car and suits to give every new picture a new "look"? If Spider-man has the edge on Batsy, it's that he doesn't need anything other than his costume to do his work, and so, the films never have to revamp everything to make it new and exciting. Classic Spider-Man is classic. But is the Batman Begins look as it is now...classic enough to stay the same throughout the series of films?

Bruce Kent

06-22-2005, 02:57 PM

Don't you all think it's interesting we never saw Rachel's father, though?

What if she is truly the character we all though she was based off of and her father is The Reaper and she took her mom's last name. Her father could be a villain in Scarecrow or Falcone's capacity at some point, adding more to Rachel's character.

BatKid

06-22-2005, 03:13 PM

Here's a question about the upcoming sequels...are they going to keep "updating" the cave, car and suits to give every new picture a new "look"? If Spider-man has the edge on Batsy, it's that he doesn't need anything other than his costume to do his work, and so, the films never have to revamp everything to make it new and exciting. Classic Spider-Man is classic. But is the Batman Begins look as it is now...classic enough to stay the same throughout the series of films? As with the comics, the batcave will most always certainly be improving. And with the mansion burning down in the first film, that's a great set-up to completely revamping the batmobile with all the necessary gadgets. I think Nolan will still keep it down to earth though. No ultra-techy stuff there, but certainly there would be items like that. The cave will still look like a cave.

TimTwoFace

06-22-2005, 05:33 PM

I don't see how rebuilding the cave and mansion automatically means a new Batmobile, but it'll be the start of renovating Batman's base, that's for sure.

I also like how the word "Batmobile" was never used in the movie; I wonder if/how/when that word will enter Batman's consciousness. It sounds like something Robin would say. :p

I'm all for Katie Holmes staying on for a sequel; she will have more to do in the sequels, as the DA's office will be getting a lot more attention. Batman and Gordon are partners now, Harvey Dent is entering the fray, the movie won't spend its first 40 minutes outside of Gotham, etc; I don't really see her as a romantic lead, but I'd like to see her in the sequel.

And then fall prey to one of Gotham's crazies. :D

Either that, or she'll go nuts and become the "Holiday" killer.

-Tim

BatKid

06-22-2005, 05:57 PM

I also like how the word "Batmobile" was never used in the movie; I wonder if/how/when that word will enter Batman's consciousness. It sounds like something Robin would say. :p

-Tim One of my minor quips in the film. I've never seen Bruce thinking up of a name, calling himself Batman. I've always preferred it to have the media name him that. One of the things Burton got right in the film. Especially when they added 'The' in front of it. Just added more mystery to the character.

TimTwoFace

06-22-2005, 06:44 PM

One of my minor quips in the film. I've never seen Bruce thinking up of a name, calling himself Batman. I've always preferred it to have the media name him that. One of the things Burton got right in the film. Especially when they added 'The' in front of it. Just added more mystery to the character.
I dunno...I never had a problem with Batman coming up with his own name. It's a simple name that, really, doesn't sound like much - but say it enough, and it's effective.

Maybe I just don't want to have scenes exist in Batman's world like the one in SPIDER-MAN 2, where Jonah Jameson spends half an hour coming up with cool names for Spider-Man and his rogues gallery; that just seemed really cheesy and contrived. :p

-Tim

Phantasm

06-22-2005, 06:47 PM

hhmm...if I remember correctly, in one of those graphic novels, the name of which I can't pin point at this exact second,Alfred mentions something about Bruce imitating Superman back in Metropolis...Maybe he got the inspiration from 'Superman' and decided to go by the name 'Batman.':shrug:

Storm

06-22-2005, 08:10 PM

You know I'm conflicted with this post because to an extent I agree with you. I never like seeing the damsel-in-distress/flavor-of-the-week love interests roles. Yes, Katie Holmes' character is somehow dispensable when compared to forthcoming hopefuls like Selina Kyle and Talia however I do think Rachel Dawes was an improvement from past leading Bat-ladies like Basinger's Vale and Kidman's Meridian. So I have to disagree with you when it comes to all the animosity towards Rachel Dawes/Katie Holmes. Dawes was outgoing and actually did something about the crime and corruption in Gotham. She's an assistant DA so it's not like she's all talk and no action like the previous Vicki Vale role.

You're absolutely right about one thing. She is a nobody in Batman's world but she is a somebody is Bruce Wayne's world. First love? Maybe. Friend and ally. Absolutely. An underdog hero who just as badly wants to clean up the crime in Gotham City? You betcha bottom dollar. Don't just dismiss her as a nobody because she came out of the cookie-cutter mold of cinema leading ladies. To be honest out of all of the comic book/genre films I've seen she's one of the few who actually was three dimensional. Dawes is a somebody and I tip by hat off to Holmes for portraying her because she was likable and she wasn't just there to be the flavor of the day. I never saw her as the big love interest. I saw her as more of the childhood friend as she was portrayed in the movie. We all know that she'll never have Bruce's heart. That belongs to Ms. Kyle ;) However she did help him during his darkest hours and she was one of the few who led Bruce down the path to become Batman.

So do I expect to see her in the next sequel? Yes but as a secondary player this time. I want her to be boost up to DA and working with the likes of Gordon and Bullock. I like her as Bruce's friend than main squeeze. I don't want her to overshadow future love interests like Catwoman or Talia but as a made-for-film character she was pretty good.

- Storm

I really disliked Katie's presence in the first film because it really had nothing to do with anything. She was a random female character written in to be fighting the good fight (Like Vicki Vale and Chase Meridian) all the while falling for Bruce/Batman, getting a trip to the cave, playing the helpless victim and then vanishing at the end. The fact that they took this stereotypical character and made her young Bruce's Best friend only added insult to injury for me.

So I'm conflicted as to how she should be ousted. If they kill her, she'll become some big tragic character, and honestly she doesn't deserve that much attention. If they just leave her out of the next movie, then they're proving that she was just as dispensable as the other females love interests before her. Even though we all know she is, I still don't want that kind of laziness being a part of this franchise, which looks to be off to an interesting start.

When I think back to when I first heard about Katie's character, I kept hoping that she would be Talia in disguise, and spent the entire movie waiting and hoping that twist would materialize (even if she'd be a crummy Talia) simply because I hated the idea of yet another lame lady getting screentime. Since she isn't Talia, and none of the other plans make any sense, the best thing to do is corrupt her. Don't Mary-Jane her people...she's a NOBODY to the Batman world, and really needs to get lost. The only interesting thing to do with the character is make her less likeable in our eyes before having her fade out of the picture, instead of playing up the "first love/first woman to know his secret" angle that's insanely nauseating. Let's see her fall under some intense pressure in the next film, and have to make some practical decisions about her future. Play ball with the crooks by stepping down as DA (or whatever she is) and then leaving town, with Bruce totally disgusted with her, and peeved that the city seems to be corrupting those around him. Then, we can all forget about her, and Katie can go suck face with Tom until the cows come home.

John6777

06-22-2005, 08:38 PM

My ideas for Sequels!!

Batman 2: Origin of Joker, While trying to rescure Mrs.Gordon from the joker. Batman and Commisioner Gordon must help each other to solve the crime. But when Mrs. Gordon turns up alive, Bruce realizes she wasn't the target. The DA was Rachel Dewes. Unable to find leads Batman gets help from a mysterious Woman known as Talia. She points him in the right direction only to find Rachel already dead. Batman goes ballistic trying to kill the Joker and it's Gordon who must stop him.

Batman 3: While on trial Joker mames the new DA Harvey Dent causing a horrible psychotic fit. Turning harvey into Two-face. Joker is sentenced to Arkham where he begins sessions with Harleen Quinzelle. As for Harvey he leads a massacre of bodies. Killing off all the criminals he was prosecuting. Batman finds Talia in the middle of it all. She then joins him once more to help him on his crusade. They stop Two-Face only to find a letter from beyond the grave of his old master Ducard. And to make matters worse Joker escapes and takes Harleen Quinzelle hostage.

Batman 4: Finally stopping Joker and his new sidekick Harley Quinn. Talia and Bruce (Who are a couple now) decide to go on Vacation in Paris. But when murders start to arise and Bruce Wayne is the main suspect. Batman must find out who is trying to frame him. That's when Talia double crosses Bruce and drugs him and takes him to her father "Ra's Al Ghul". It's the final battle between Ra's and Bruce and Talia is stuck in the middle.

Cast:
http://freehosting.hostrave.com/p/shaw712/CrispinJoker3.JPG
Crispin Glover as Joker.

http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/TV2/archive/00141/epa_brittany_murphy_141103a.jpg

Britanny Murphy as Harley Quinn

http://www.monicabellucci.it/gallery/images/190.jpg
Monica Bellucci as Talia

BatKid

06-22-2005, 08:41 PM

I dunno...I never had a problem with Batman coming up with his own name. It's a simple name that, really, doesn't sound like much - but say it enough, and it's effective.

Maybe I just don't want to have scenes exist in Batman's world like the one in SPIDER-MAN 2, where Jonah Jameson spends half an hour coming up with cool names for Spider-Man and his rogues gallery; that just seemed really cheesy and contrived. :p

-Tim Fine, then have the underworld give him the nickname. Make them say it like 'Bat-Man' to emphasize they don't know who/what he is.

Giving yourself a superhero name just sounds so childish. :o

BonyT

06-22-2005, 10:02 PM

I also like how the word "Batmobile" was never used in the movie; I wonder if/how/when that word will enter Batman's consciousness. It sounds like something Robin would say. :p

-TimThat, of course, is precisely how Frank Miller handled the origin of the name "Batmobile" in DKR. Batman says outright, "The Batmobile -- that's what you called it, Dick. Kind of name a kid would come up with ..." ;)

The shape of the tumbler is no doubt meant, at least in part, to be a small-scale tribute to the "tank" Batmobile of DKR. The film makes a conscious tip-o-the-hat to Miller, I think, when the cop describes the tumbler over the radio as "a black ... tank!"

Casey Mack

06-23-2005, 02:47 AM

ManicWebb

06-23-2005, 02:59 AM

I don't understand all of the hate toward Robin. He's a very classic character, and holds a special place in the Batman mythos. You can't say "Batman and" without someone assuming "Robin" is coming after.

It can't be because Robin wouldn't fit in with his "dark, realistic" Batman movies, because there are plenty of ways to use him without it getting campy.

GregX

06-23-2005, 03:00 AM

Beyond Batman

06-23-2005, 03:12 AM

As some of you might Know "Popular" Batman Begins director Christopher Nolan does not particularly like Robin. As a Matter fact he goes as far as to say he would not be involved in a Batman Movie that has any Robin in it. Yet heres my problem with that, he never gives a reason for his hatred of a character that is one-half of the most well known duo in Pop-culture. So im going to boycott future Nolan installments and wait for someone to come along that does not have an ego or distast for classic characters. Atleast Joel Schumacher didn't simply hate a character for no reason. Matter of Fact Robin is more important then Jim Gordan in a sense.Can you point us to where you got this information from? Besides, when Christopher Nolan does the Batman Begins sequal... you know you're going to watch it Casey Mack.... c'mon... You know you will. Can you really resist??? :rolleyes:

And if you think about it, Batman has enough history to make a movie for every rogue in Arkham. And the way Nolan and Goyer did Batman Begins, there'd be no room to fit in Robin. Batman has yet to be explored further on the big screen. Robin would just steal the spotlight. And anyway, Robin has enough backstory to star in his own film. I'd much rather see Robin have his own film than taking the spotlight away from Batman.

Batman Begins gave us everything us Batfans wanted... a Batman truely modeled from the comics. What more do you want... sheessh! :p Don't give Nolan a hard time... he deserves an applause.

Zyzzybalubah

06-23-2005, 03:19 AM

I'm fine with that. I liked the animated series better without Robin, I liked the first two Batman movies without him. IMO Robin just ruins the whole darkside of Bruce. I hope if Nolan continues, he leaves out Batgirl as well. Pretty please? :)

Casey Mack

06-23-2005, 03:31 AM

Nolan is entitled to his opinion. But I see no reason to boycott his movies just because he personally does not like Robin. I'll admit, I've never been wild about Robin, but that's fine. If I made a Batman movie, I doubt I'd use Robin either.

Nolan made a great Batman movie, he might make more great Batman movies following this one, he probably will. But his personal opinion on a character should have no bearing on that If you liked "Batman Begins" anyway.

Just my opinion, but I think boycotting movies because of the director's opinion on a fictional character is even more innane than boycotting a movie over an actor's political opinions.
Nah dun be hasty Demona, im not really gonna boycott the future installments. I just want a reason why he dislikes the character with a passion. Oh and Beyond Bayond Robin does not have to take the spotlight away from Batman, but balance him out alittle. Heres my basic point Dick Grayson does not take away from this "Darkness" as some people think. It gives Bruce a person Bruce can relate with on some levels. Dick Grayson saw his parents die just like Bruce did.

Dick doesn't even have to become Robin when he first appears. He can just be a young troubled orphan Bruce Takes in. It would show a nicer side of Batman, and Robin could be the Light on the Darkside of Bats.

Wounded_Dragon

06-23-2005, 03:44 AM

Maybe he just dislikes the reason Robin was created in the first place.

The Electric Knight

06-23-2005, 03:47 AM

In my opinion, Robin would need some serious adapting to work in this series, and the result of that could be much worse than not including him at all. As much as I love the character, I understand Nolan's concerns. As bad as Forever and '& Robin were, Joel had two good ideas - make him older, give him a darker suit (Batman & Robin).

While I love Solo-Batman, part of what this series is about is that Batman "begins" something - Gordon stated this at the end of the film. Rise of the freaks. It is unrealistic to assume that other vigilantes won't come out of the woodwork. So I would love to see some. They don't have to be sidekicks though...

For example, I would much rather see Huntress/Helena Bertinelli in this series. She would fit the dark tone perfectly - has strong connections to Bruce (similar past), and also to the world of organised crime, which is very prominent in Begins. Almost as an opposite effect of Robin, she would show Batman the danger of going too far for justice, and becoming too violent. She is such a strong character in the comics (Cry For Blood is magnificent), she would transfer wonderfully. So long as they don't use the Jim Lee costume, of course. Ugh.

And I would like to see Barbara Gordon. Because she makes up much of what is the heart and soul of modern Batman comics. If she is simply Oracle from the get-go, that's fine with me. I understand why Nolan could be concerned about Batgirl in the same way he is for Robin.

Casey Mack

06-23-2005, 04:10 AM

In my opinion, Robin would need some serious adapting to work in this series, and the result of that could be much worse than not including him at all. As much as I love the character, I understand Nolan's concerns. As bad as Forever and '& Robin were, Joel had two good ideas - make him older, give him a darker suit (Batman & Robin).

While I love Solo-Batman, part of what this series is about is that Batman "begins" something - Gordon stated this at the end of the film. Rise of the freaks. It is unrealistic to assume that other vigilantes won't come out of the woodwork. So I would love to see some. They don't have to be sidekicks though...

For example, I would much rather see Huntress/Helena Bertinelli in this series. She would fit the dark tone perfectly - has strong connections to Bruce (similar past), and also to the world of organised crime, which is very prominent in Begins. Almost as an opposite effect of Robin, she would show Batman the danger of going too far for justice, and becoming too violent. She is such a strong character in the comics (Cry For Blood is magnificent), she would tranfer wonderfully. So long as they don't use the Jim Lee costume, of course. Ugh.

And I would like to see Barbara Gordon. Because she makes up much of what is the heart and soul of modern Batman comics. If she is simply Oracle from the get-go, that's fine with me. I understand why Nolan could be concerned about Batgirl in the same way he is for Robin.
^ Excellent my friend

But i remeber in the Batman the animated series 2 part episode called "Robins Reckoning" [Have you seen it?] It showed that haveing Dick Grayson around can work on any level. It was very emotional and showed a very good relationship, and no once in the flashback did Dick put on a Robin suit. Its that kind of work that would seperate a good Director from an average one with a good script.

RAINMAN

06-23-2005, 04:20 AM

A lot of people hate robin for what reason I don`t know? Is it cause of 60,s show? DG not being robin anymore? Or is the jason todd era? Wheather robin show up or not won`t bother me much, However, I understand where mack is coming from. To hate a characters for no reason is very lame. And if you hate him/her just because everyone else does is even more lame. Remind me of cyclops of the x-men. Some X fans hate him yet never give a reason why? It`s really annoying when you think about it.:sad:

Beyond Batman

06-23-2005, 04:34 AM

Dick doesn't even have to become Robin when he first appears. He can just be a young troubled orphan Bruce Takes in. It would show a nicer side of Batman, and Robin could be the Light on the Darkside of Bats.
Would you not agree that's what Alfred's for? Besides, Robin was originally created because Batman was an adult. To appeal to a younger audience, Robin was introduced to bridge younger readers. Younger readers could relate to a child-like hero. Brilliant idea may I add. When Robin appeared DC increased their level of sales to a younger audience.

I do agree with you. I'd like to see Bruce take in a young Dick Grayson as a ward only. And have the movie spinoff onto his own Robin movie. But even having Dick come in still deters the story away from Batman's development.

Casey Mack, do you have the source stating that Chris Nolan "hates Robin?" I'm really curious to see it.

Beyond Batman

06-23-2005, 04:38 AM

^ Excellent my friend

But i remeber in the Batman the animated series 2 part episode called "Robins Reckoning" [Have you seen it?] It showed that haveing Dick Grayson around can work on any level. It was very emotional and showed a very good relationship, and no once in the flashback did Dick put on a Robin suit. Its that kind of work that would seperate a good Director from an average one with a good script.
Case in point... "Robin's Reckoning" was more about Robin than Batman, which is why Robin should have his own movie. Not to be thrown in with Batman. It's so much to take in at once, it would be a 5 hour movie. Not that I'd mind, but I don't see it happening.

Beyond Batman

06-23-2005, 04:42 AM

I don't mean to be a pest... but I hope you (or anyone) can post the source where Nolan states he "hates Robin." Thanks in advance. :)

Casey Mack

06-23-2005, 05:05 AM

I don't mean to be a pest... but I hope you (or anyone) can post the source where Nolan states he "hates Robin." Thanks in advance. :)
here read this interview this is the one i could find when you get to the end of it you will see his obvious disinterest in Robin appearing.http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=13964

Jack Naiper

06-23-2005, 06:05 AM

Robin = Camp.

Even in Dark Victory and in the Animated sieres.

Camp has no place in the revived Batman movie franchise.

And Jim Gordon is a much more interesting character than Robin.

Shaggy&Daphne

06-23-2005, 06:23 AM

Tim Burton hated Robin too. He was open to the idea of possibly introducing him in one of the movies, but only if it was done right. In the end everyone realized that the character just didn't fit into Tim Burtons dark world. Robin had been included in the original drafts of both the Batman and Batman Returns script, but had been cut out each time.

Hades

06-23-2005, 06:53 AM

I do not mind as these movies have no need for Robin, at least for two more sequels.

Jack Naiper

06-23-2005, 07:13 AM

Batman: The Killing Joke

Without warning, a deranged psychopath named The Joker murders Gotham's

Citizens one by one. Men, Women and children. Batman tries to find a method

To his madness, a connection between the victims, but finds there is none.

An alliance is formed between Batman, Jim Gordon's and Gotham's new District

Attorney Harvey Dent to bring down The Joker at all costs. The Joker kidnaps

Dent and tortures him both mentally and physically. He is trying to prove a Point, he tells Dent. "All it takes is one bad day to drive the sanest man alive to Lunacy."

Batman finds The Joker and nearly beats him to death after he sees what he did

To Harvey, Gordon stops Batman from killing him. The Joker is taken to Arkham

Asylum and Gotham is safe… for now…

Dent is taken to the hospital and is treated for his injuries, but as the doctor uncovers the bandages on his face, he is taken back. Dent demands a mirror,

And the last thing we hear before the movie ends, is his scream…

Cast:
Joker- Jude Law
Harvey Dent- Guy Pearce

BatKid

06-23-2005, 07:17 AM

This is Batman's time to shine. I'm suspecting that Nolan and Bale don't dislike Robin because of his character, but his appearance will automatically bring some "light" into the franchise. And at this time, they're not trying to do that.

Once Bats is established and a little older, Robin can be brought in. By then Bruce would have grown old enough to be a proper father-figure. We won't see that in Nolan's movies though, more likely the next.

Jack Naiper

06-23-2005, 07:43 AM

TheEvilClown

06-23-2005, 09:15 AM

I think Nolan didn't like the way Robin was patrayed in the 2 last films before his. Brining Robin in at Batman Forever kinda ruined the series IMO.

James

06-23-2005, 09:33 AM

I think simply it's because if Batman wasn't hard enough to translate faithfully to a mainstream audience, Robin just makes it a nightmare.

I hate Robin. I accept the roles as being part of mythology but I be VERY happy to see it go.

We have lots of excuses in canon and fandom as to why Batman, who is out there protecting the innocent from fates like his parents, would have a minor as a sidekick in a battle against pyschos and murderers in a violent city.. but just look at that statement and try applying it to a serious movie aimed at mainstream audiences and find justification. The danger is, it doesn't only break any suspension of disbelief achieved by the careful handling of Bruce Wayne and Batman by Nolan here, it weakens the credibility for the main character itself.

It becomes a point hard to justify without shifting the focus of the film to Robin.. and then again, you are automatically making a box office risk altering formula so much.

Robin was there to lighten Batman; to make him more kid friendly too. His actual existence is non sensical but accepted after a long history of companionship in the comics. However does that make him a necessity on screen? To remain faithful to Batman's lore, do we have to change it to do by making Robin older and therefore more of an acceptable companion? So to remain faithful, the role is changed and therefore is unfaithful. So is there really a point in including him if it's not in an authentic way?

Films are a different medium to comics. You don't have the versitility you do in comics. You can get away with far more in a literature based medium than a live action one. Look at the suits and characters for one... blue and grey spandex doesn't look quite as good on film does it? Likewise, on a deeper level, there are other elements which are difficult to translate without breaking that suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying it would be impossible to render a faithful Robin. I wouldn't be so bold. I'm sure there are angles and methods to create a film that does so. The question you have to ask yourself - is it worth the effort and risk adding Robin, a character whose very existence was not to make the character of Batman more credible, but to create a bond with an audience most adult Batman fans don't want their films focused on.

I think Nolan is wise and I support any such decision. Robin is a potential disaster - unless you have a FANTASTIC script which manages to support his existence without over focusing on him without weakinging Bruce, or you simply alter the character and make him older. As soon as you do the latter, you may as well look for another support character.. like Nightwing, or as suggested, some of the more mature Gotham characters.. Oracle or the like.

As soon as films becoming dictated by their written origins, they loose the ability to be flexible in their chosen media. This is not a comic, it's a film, and has to be written as thus while being a thoughtful rendition of it's source.

Nightflower

06-23-2005, 09:36 AM

I think Nolan didn't like the way Robin was patrayed in the 2 last films before his. Brining Robin in at Batman Forever kinda ruined the series IMO.
No, I think being crappy ruined last two films. Don't blame Robin. :p

Although I agree that if they do bring in Robin, it would be very difficult to make it work. Even if they go with his modern costume (Instead of having him running around in green panties and elf shoes), it would be hard to pull off without looking silly.

Mek

06-23-2005, 09:41 AM

That, and nowadays most Robin fans know him as the one on 'Teen Titans'. So I can also see where that would kill the desire for Robin in the 'dark' movies, even if I'm a fan of TT.

Simpler Simon

06-23-2005, 09:48 AM

Like the first franchise, I can't see this new one lasting to a third or fourth film without introducing Robin at some point. Unless I'm mistaken, the usual "early years" period for Batman starts with year 1 and ends with him swearing in Dick Grayson at the end of year 3, kind of showing how much Batman's learned and how he's willing to help others with a similiar pain now. Forgetting the camp aspect of having a colourful sidekick for a moment, Robin's presence also brings character development to Batman, and there's no reason why they can't do a relatively dark story while also having Robin (see Dark Victory).

I wasn't a fan of Robin until BTAS showed how Robin could fit into a dark Batman interpretation and not feel out of place. Also, I think Batman Forever actually nailed a lot about getting the Robin character to work onscreen - spend the whole film developing his pain, letting the audience get to know him, and finally bring out the Robin suit at the end. It kinda parallels how Nolan introduced Batman this time around.

Silly McGooses

06-23-2005, 09:48 AM

Robin came *this* close to totally destroying the animated series with his stupid quips and teenageness. the series creators also hated him, pointing out in the Robin's Reckoning commentary, "WOW! He's ALMOST tollerable in this one!":anime:

The character of Robin was introduced to give kids someone to relate to. these movies aren't particularly aimed at little kids (though many love them anyway, and Robin in Forever was just pointless because he was pretty old), and it distracts from Batman completely. Batman's pretty young in this, anyway.

As for the test-of-time thing, Begins is close in history to the 89 Batman, and that one was not only more sucessful commercially, but it's look and tone gave it more timelessness to begin with...except for those prince songs. Begins' attempts to make everything "real", I think, will hurt the movie in the future because it so clearly takes place in 2005, while Burton's Batmans, and even Schumacher's Batmans, are near-timeless pieces, much like the Animated Series, where art deco and cops in funny hats exist alongside with computers.

Batboy

06-23-2005, 09:51 AM

Dent is taken to the hospital and is treated for his injuries, but as the doctor uncovers the bandages on his face, he is taken back. Dent demands a mirror,

And the last thing we hear before the movie ends, is his scream…
Hmm...Two-Face, Part 1 anyone? :D.

I am a fan of Batman The Animated Series, but I'm not sure if I want it to happen just like in that show. It'd be better if they came up with something else.

Silly McGooses

06-23-2005, 10:02 AM

I think it would be good if they did something like The Long Halloween, only there's no Holliday, the killings are all by the Joker, and there aren't so many of them, but Falcone and his family should figure into the story, too. Basically, same story with Harvey Dent/Comissioner Gordon/Batman and the Two-Face origin.

I don't care who plays who as long as Crispin Glover or Mark Hamill s Joker

90'sCartoonMan

06-23-2005, 11:08 AM

here read this interview this is the one i could find when you get to the end of it you will see his obvious disinterest in Robin appearing.http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=13964
Doesn't look like he hates Robin, but I don't see him pushing for it either.

It's more like by the time Robin would show up (at the pace they've set), it won't be until a much later film, if the franchise lasts that long, and if it does, Nolan won't still be directing.

Personally, I love Robin. Tim Drake is the reason I started reading Batman comic books, and I think Nightwing is cool. However, after seeing Batman Begins, I'm in no hurry to add a Robin (Huntress would be cool as a seperate force, but no Robin, no Batgirl). Maybe a Robin-less Dick Grayson would be interesting. Bruce could adopt him in one movie, but of course the movie after that would pretty much demand putting him in costume.

Patrick Bateman

06-23-2005, 11:41 AM

I love Dick Grayson's Robin, but hate the other two. I do understand the concerns for Robin in the franchise. I try to picture a little kid in a mask on screen with Christian Bale as Batman, and it makes me shudder.

I'd like to see a happy medium. Introduce Dick Grayson, go through the process where he loses his parents and comes to live with Bruce, and finds out Bruce's secret. But he would only be Dick Grayson, a side character at Wayne Manor and in the Batcave. That could work without getting campy. Then it would be up to the audience to know that this kid will one day be Robin, without Nolan having to bust his ass finding a way to make it look good on film.

BonyT

06-23-2005, 11:47 AM

Robin was originally created for a number of reasons, some of which have already been stated. Initially, Bob Kane wasn't wild about the idea of Robin, because he didn't want to spoil the dark vibe of his lone vigilante; but DC wanted to bring in a younger audience via a heroic character with whom they could more easily identify. And the truth is, having Robin did help Kane & Finger in one sense: Batman, being so dark & brooding, naturally wasn't very talkative, which made it somewhat difficult to fill dialogue bubbles in cartoon panels; and Robin, at least, forced Batman to interact with someone.

Robin did, however, actually add some legitimate artistic/literary value, in that he served as a foil for Batman: where Batman was drawn all in black and grey, Robin was done in bright, primary colors; where Batman was a mature (indeed, a positively grim) adult, Robin was an effervescent, bouncing youth; where Batman was a polished detective and fighting machine, Robin was more like a "monkey wrench" thrown into the works (as Frank Miller aptly put it). So Robin's character did add layers of complexity and artistry to the story.

But the problem comes from the fact that Robin was a creation of a different era, in terms of sensibilities -- an era that, although Batman's handlers didn't realize it, was already beginning to pass away, even when Robin was introduced. Kane & Finger thought nothing of Robin's "green panties & elf booties" (as Nightflower put it ;) ); their idea was to try to evoke a sort of whimsical child version of Robin Hood (hence the name). And when the charge was leveled that maybe there was some homosexual/pedophilic dynamic in Batman's relationship with the "Boy Wonder," Kane & Finger were horrified. They had deliberately chosen a boy sidekick to avoid the only charges of impropriety that they actually imagined people might have, had Robin been a girl. (In our times, the public also winces at Batman's gross child endangerment in putting so young a sidekick directly in the line of fire of Gotham's worst criminals & psychopaths.)

So what's the solution? As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, both the previous Batman film franchise (and to a lesser extent, the comics) tried to address these issues by a) making Robin older -- at least, not so obviously a child -- and b) giving a somewhat more masculine edge to his costume. The evolution of this approach culminates in Batman and Robin, where Robin is over 18 -- a legal adult, not a child at all -- and his costume, aside from the red stylized robin-bird on his chest & arms (an obvious nod to his Nightwing persona in the comics), is no longer bright & colorful in the slightest, but is entirely black, so as to be scarcely distinguishable from Batman's.

The problem with this approach is, if you go to all those lengths to make Robin more palatable to modern sensibilities, in the process you've actually completely GUTTED the only legitimate literary/artistic function the character ever had in the first place: he's no longer a foil who highlights Batman's darkness by his contrasting light qualities; he's now nothing more than a younger Batman mini-me. He's Batman lite. And to that, I say, No thanks. If all he's gonna be is a somewhat pale reflection of the main character, why even bother?

So I agree with SJJ: Ultimately, Robin's probably just too problematic to be worth the trouble in modern times. Perhaps he could be developed in some imaginative way that would preserve his value as something more than merely a little Bat-clone; but in the limited framework provided by a feature film, that would be quite a challenge, especially if the ideal is NOT to take all of the focus off of the title character in the process.

... Having said that, however, I think perhaps Alex Ross' thoughts on the Robin character might be worth noting here. Ross also didn't like the character, for the same reasons that have been highlighted by many in this thread. However, his feeling was that, whether he liked it or not, Robin IS part of the Batman mythos that he couldn't simply ignore, even if he dealt with him somewhat sparingly.

From what we hear of the plot for the next two movies, they'll follow right on the heels of one another and of Begins, without any significant time lag in between. So frankly, I doubt that the films will even get to the point in the storyline where Robin even could reasonably be introduced yet. But if the films do go beyond 3 total, and if they jump ahead enough in time that Robin might reasonably be expected to be present, then he could be simply referred to, as perhaps being off attending college and thus not currently active as Robin. Or he might even return home for a visit and have a role out of costume, simply interacting with Alfred and Bruce. The point is, I think the Robin pitfalls could be avoided without necessarily ignoring the character's existence altogether.

Azrael24

06-23-2005, 12:00 PM

xokxtrunks

06-23-2005, 12:13 PM

Well, I see his point in not wanting Robin in a future Bat-film. As anyone who's seen Begins knows, it's darker, and Robin would lighten up the film. Batman would lose his darkness in the new films. And after Forever and Bats & Robin, I'm glad there won't be a Robin in the near future, while Nolan is around. 3 Cheers for Nolan!

Azrael24

06-23-2005, 01:37 PM

im one of those people who dont like robin. those reasons have already been mentioned. the only sidekicks i would like to see are cassandra cain batgirl and huntress. they fit the 'mood' and 'tone' that nolan has created for these films. robin just doesnt fit and would destroy these films. i used to be a fan or robin when i was little but now i think hes too...childish. well, thats my 2 cents

randomguy

06-23-2005, 01:41 PM

Doesn't look like he hates Robin, but I don't see him pushing for it either.Quoted for emphasis. Having actually read Nolan's comments, it's quite clear to me that he doesn't hate Robin, he just feels that Robin doesn't have a place in his version of Batman. That seems fair enough to me.

I had this discussion with friends, actually. I love Robin, I think he's a great character and an important part of the mythology, but by the same token, there are certain takes on Batman where his presence isn't needed. Having thought about it a bit, I don't really believe Robin belongs in the Batman Begins franchise. I believe it could probably be done fairly well, but I ultimately don't think it would be in the best interests of the series. Let poor Dick Grayson's parents survive in this universe.

Killtacular

06-23-2005, 01:54 PM

Robin would ruin the Batman Begins franchise. He would make it hopelessly shlocky, fights would have to pull back and look like broadway musical numbers, and everything I hated about Schumaker's films would come pouring back in.

KEEP. ROBIN. OUT.

AdamYJ

06-23-2005, 02:13 PM

Okay, a few things:

1) I have not seen Batman Begins yet.

2) I actually like Robin more than I like Batman anyway.

That said, I would like to point out that I think the role of Robin (or at least, Bruce's ward) is an important part of the Batman mythos. It contributes to Bruce's character arc. I always saw the story of Batman as sort of the story of a superhero's salvation, not the story of one dark man's never-ending quest. It's the story of this scarred, angry loner healing and becoming something better. The first half of Bruce's salvation is already there in the form of Alfred. He plays the father-figure and voice of reason. The second half is Robin in whatever form he takes. He's someone who forces Bruce to become a responsible grown-up and care for someone else other than himself and the faceless thousands of Gotham City.

Cogliostro

06-23-2005, 02:21 PM

I am fear
I am the night
I am Batman!
.....and here is my bright colored young sidekick!

People have the right to their opinions, while Robin is a part of the Batman mythos he isn't needed. I can fully understand why a director wouldn't want Robin in his film(s), what I can't understand what boycotting a movie will do.

Chris Wood

06-23-2005, 02:26 PM

I am fear
I am the night
I am Batman!
.....and here is my bright colored young sidekick!

HaHa!! Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Various people may play Batman, but Burt Ward will always own Robin. It's hard to be a brooding dark knight when your goofy sidekick is always making wisecracks.

Fresh V

06-23-2005, 02:28 PM

That, and nowadays most Robin fans know him as the one on 'Teen Titans'. So I can also see where that would kill the desire for Robin in the 'dark' movies, even if I'm a fan of TT. Actually, the Teen Titans Robin isn't the Robin that became Batman's sidekick. The TT Robin became Nightwing when he grew up, and someone else found out Batman's identity and became the new Robin.

JohnCrichton

06-23-2005, 02:28 PM

Guys, guys... Katie Holmes served a definate purpose in this film. She was that moral fulcrum that kept Bruce from crossing the edge and reminding him what it was he should be fighting for and against.

Without that voice, Bruce's character would've ended up like Faux-Ra's.

She wasn't just a love interest.

JohnCrichton

06-23-2005, 02:37 PM

I think people think of Jason Todd too much, or the "Holy Stuffnjunk, Batman!" Robin... he could be done right, but as the universe is that Nolan set for Batman Begins, there's absolutely NO room for a Robin... or partners, really.

This Batman is a lone wolf all the way.

Zero-V

06-23-2005, 03:09 PM

She was that moral fulcrum that kept Bruce from crossing the edge and reminding him what it was he should be fighting for and against
What film were you watching?

She wasn't just a love interest.
She was wallpaper, Bruce and the audience look at her, are mildly interested in what it has to offer, and then gets back to the real action, she was boring, listless, and generic, there was no emotional investment in her, try Silver St Cloud, Vesper Fairchild, or, like Burtons' classic, use Vicky Vale, they were actually in the comics

Azrael24

06-23-2005, 03:43 PM

i have to agree with johncrichton, she was important. at least the character was important, its just katie isnt a very good actress.

i think people dont like her cause she slaped bruce.:anime:

JohnCrichton

06-23-2005, 04:57 PM

What film were you watching?

She was wallpaper, Bruce and the audience look at her, are mildly interested in what it has to offer, and then gets back to the real action, she was boring, listless, and generic, there was no emotional investment in her, try Silver St Cloud, Vesper Fairchild, or, like Burtons' classic, use Vicky Vale, they were actually in the comicsI have to ask what film you were watching?

The connection between her words said to Bruce and his resulting action in not killing the guy in the monestary and going against the teachings of his sensei were all a direct result of Katie's words to him.

Before she spoke up to him, he was of the same mind as Liam Neeson.

I don't think people like her cuz she's "Katie Holmes".

Storm

06-23-2005, 05:10 PM

The connection between her words said to Bruce and his resulting action in not killing the guy in the monestary and going against the teachings of his sensei were all a direct result of Katie's words to him.
*Nods*

I think a lot of fanboys just don't accept her because either she's portrayed by Katie Holmes and/or that she was a made-for-film character. I personally liked Rachel Dawes. I think she was right up there with the likes of Lois Lane. She was more than eye candy. She had a mind and goal of her own. Holmes may of not impressed a lot of people in Batman Begins but make no mistake she is a fairly good actress. Rent the film Pieces of Apirl. The girl can act. I wish a lot of people wouldn't pre-judge her cause of her latest headline-of-the-week romance with Tom Cruise. With a few more roles I think she could go far in Hollywood.

- Storm

TimTwoFace

06-23-2005, 05:48 PM

Did we really need a seperate thread for this? I thought the mods here didn't want more Bat-threads for a while, cuz it already looks pretty cluttered.

Anyway, why pick on a guy for not liking Robin? Robin doesn't have to be in the movies right away; I liked how they originally waited until the third movie to introduce his character, but this time around, I want them to wait longer, still - not until the fourth, even. There are so many important characters being set up right now - heroes and villains alike - that introducing a huge character like Robin would just stretch things too thin.

I'm not against Robin being in movies again - I just want to wait a good decade or so. Batman still works best as a solo act, anyway, so let's go with that for a while.

-Tim

TimTwoFace

06-23-2005, 06:03 PM

JLU Dude

06-23-2005, 09:11 PM

On the subject of Robin, but much like Carnage appearing in a Spider-Man film, I wouldn't mind seeing them and like the characters, but I'd rather not see them in the films.

Batman: The Killing Joke

Without warning, a deranged psychopath named The Joker murders Gotham's

Citizens one by one. Men, Women and children. Batman tries to find a method

To his madness, a connection between the victims, but finds there is none.

An alliance is formed between Batman, Jim Gordon's and Gotham's new District

Attorney Harvey Dent to bring down The Joker at all costs. The Joker kidnaps

Dent and tortures him both mentally and physically. He is trying to prove a Point, he tells Dent. "All it takes is one bad day to drive the sanest man alive to Lunacy."

Batman finds The Joker and nearly beats him to death after he sees what he did

To Harvey, Gordon stops Batman from killing him. The Joker is taken to Arkham

Asylum and Gotham is safe… for now…

Dent is taken to the hospital and is treated for his injuries, but as the doctor uncovers the bandages on his face, he is taken back. Dent demands a mirror,

And the last thing we hear before the movie ends, is his scream…

Cast:
Joker- Jude Law
Harvey Dent- Guy Pearce
I, like TimTwoFace, like this idea.:) It reminds me of the whole Grodd/New Zoom bit from Flash. I however wouldn't mind the seeds of Two-Face begin to spout at the end of the second movie, though.

thats jus like clayface of tragedy from the batman. and guy pearce is too bony.
Well, that and the events of The Rubberface of Comedy/Clayface of Tragedy, were based on a story published called The Killing Joke, where Joker kidnapped someone close to Batman (In the original story's case, Commissioner Gordon, since Joker didn't find Bats sane) and tried to prove all it takes is one bad day (However, taking into account fan outrage & Gordon's standing in the Batman mythos, this is probably why Joker didn't succeed unlike in JackNapier's idea and the events of RoC/CoT).

BatKid

06-24-2005, 12:11 AM

Jack Napier, your idea is good - but Two-Face isn't getting scarred until the third movie, I don't think. At least he shouldn't; to the average moviegoer, they should just assume that he's going to be "just another victim" in the movie, and then the flipside of the coin is seen in the sequel.

As much as I loved the BTAS incarnation of Two-Face's origin, I'd like to see the entire courtroom drama (like in the comics, a la THE LONG HALLOWEEN) unfold on screen; that would set it apart as being unique. I don't know if I am still sold on the idea of the Joker throwing the acid into Harvey's face - it would work, yes - but wouldn't it be better if it was someone in the actual underworld, like Falcone?

The idea of him being tortured in the second movie would be great; it would heighten the tension between BAtman, Gordon, and even Rachel (if she returned).

-Tim What do you mean by him being tortured?

I like the way how BTAS handled his character before the scarring. He was a good man, had good intentions, but there was just something evil about him lurking inside. It was nice to see his character take on a new spin.

As for the actual courtroom accident, I wanna have it as a cliffhanger for the third film. Whether it be having the camera pan around the assailant's body, and see the acid bottle in his hands...or do the actual scarring, but do it dramatically so the audience never sees Dent's face. Accompany it with some really crazy and twisted instrumental, and I'd say you have an even better ending than BB.

TimTwoFace

06-24-2005, 05:21 PM

What do you mean by him being tortured?
I remember there being one issue of BATMAN ADVENTURES #3 (the first series - the one that came out in 1992/1993), in which the Joker kidnapped Harvey Dent and was going to do wicked things to him; also in THE LONG HALLOWEEN, he also broke into Harvey's home and got into a scuffle while trashing the place. Hell, even in the first Burton movie, Napier has a specific grudge against Harvey Dent; they have history, these two, no matter what continuity you look in. Something along those lines would be cool. Harvey would be a great "victim" of sorts, too; the Joker would pull out his "it only takes one bad day to drive a sane man to insanity" speech, and mentally break him down. The Joker himself wouldn't cause Dent to go mad - necessarily - but after seeing Harvey's inner demons bubbling through the earlier portions of the movie, he would bring them to the surface, and almost to the brink of tipping him over the edge. That would be a good set up for the next movie - there would be a lot of great character moments there. (Of course, that wouldn't necessarily be the Joker's big scheme, but it would be something cool on the side.)

Then, once he's saved (either by his own hands or with Batman/Gordon's help), the Joker would then be defeated and incarcerated - and that would be the end of the movie. The third movie would lead into either the Joker's courtroom appearance (and that scars Harvey) or Falcone is brought down (a la THE LONG HALLOWEEN), and then we have a Two-Face movie the rest of the way.

-Tim

KCJ506

06-24-2005, 10:01 PM

Check this out.

http://img293.echo.cx/img293/3441/batjokerposter3pe.jpg

TimTwoFace

06-25-2005, 01:13 AM

That's obviously a fan-made poster. It's pretty cool - but since it's obviously not official, does it belong in this thread?

-Tim

Bladesong26

06-25-2005, 01:15 AM

As much as I like the idea of rolling out all the classic villains for a re-tread by Nolan, I have to wonder if it's really a good idea. I mean, we already have a lengthy thread on this board about Nolan vs. Burton's interpretations of the franchise. Does WB really want to force that comparison even more? The '89 Batman is less than 20 years old---I think it's a little early and financially dangerous in terms of wearing out your audience to have Nolan give his twists on Joker, Two-Face, et al, when we've already seen them (relatively) recently in silver screen incarnations. Granted, most of those incarnations sucked, courtesy of Schumacher, but still I have this scene in my head of Average Joe Moviegoer (who's not a huge Bat fan) saying to himself, "Two-Face? Didn't I see Tommy Lee Jones do that a few years back? Why would I want to see that again?"

Of course, it's obviously worked for Batman himself, but let's put some more years distance between the first four films and the new ones. Give people some time to forget.

Oh, and fine. If I had my choice for the plotline of Numba 2, I say bring in Talia, since her dad's story is pretty well laid out, keep the Scarecrow, who's obviously not dead and begin setting up for the rest of the Rogue's Gallery. I suppose that doesn't answer the question of who the main villain would be, but hey, I'm not writing the script. :)

TimTwoFace

06-25-2005, 01:33 AM

I think people would love to see the old villains again - as long as they're new, fresh, and different. Every time I've seen this movie, I've heard a lot of people gasp with excitement during that last scene when it's all but confirmed that the Joker will be in the sequel.

Two-Face definitely deserves revisiting because we basically got a caricature of him in BATMAN FOREVER; there were flashes of brilliance but not enough of them. If he (and other already used characters) were given a more serious treatment and more depth, I doubt others would complain.

I mean, lots of people will think that Jack Nicholson's Joker will never be surpassed because simply Jack is Jack - but if Nolan's casting choice proves them wrong, they'd be even more impressed.

The other characters, I'd like to see, but the trio from BATMAN & ROBIN - Freeze, Ivy, and Bane - can sit around and collect dust for the next 20 years as far as I see it. We basically saw all we needed to see of Poison Ivy and, even moreso, Mr. Freeze, anyway; yes, they were cartoony variations of the characters, but their basic story and character arc were there. (Honestly, once you've seen one sad Mr. Freeze origin story, you've seen them all, no matter how well done or crappy that version was.)

A mix of the best of the oldies (Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman) and some new villains (Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, and Mr. Zsasz thus far, and maybe the likes of Talia, Mad Hatter, Clayface, Killer Croc, and the Ventriloquist) in the future, would be a nice mix. I wouldn't want the new series to ONLY consist of new entries; the "old" villains made it into the first four movies for a reason, after all - because, more or less, they were the most loved and the best characters.

Write a good script with a good theme, and see which villains fit that theme; that's what they did with BATMAN BEGINS, that's what they've done with the decent pair of SPIDER-MAN films, and that's what they should do in the future. I don't want to just shoehorn ice men and plant ladies into a film together "just because"...that's just sloppy.

-Tim

Bladesong26

06-25-2005, 02:03 AM

Yes, absolutely I want to see most of Schumacher's wrongs righted and I'd be thrilled to see fresh takes on these characters. The problem is we're both speaking from the positions of fans who are already sold on the premise of sequels. I just wonder about the rest of America who's not in that position. Take my mom, for example. She treated me to see Begins and stayed awake the whole way through, which is a first for her. :D I know she remembers the other films and I can imagine her (and many others) wondering why she should spend her dollars on a movie featuring characters that's she already seen elsewhere. A movie with a budget as big as a Batman flick really needs those average people's dollars. We as fans are only a minority.

But give it a few years and I think people will be ready. In the meantime, I've got the whole animated series to re-watch on DVD. :)

And please Mr. Nolan. If you ever think about doing the Mad Hatter, please do it right. He's one of my favorites, but I think he's a pretty difficult transition to live action without being totally absurd.

Crow

06-25-2005, 08:32 AM

Mad Hatter could very well work, if they distil what he is about.

His mind control cards could be adapted to the screen;

He plants them on people who would be interesting puppets;

He imparts his dark dirty deeds.

Stryker/Stryker Jr in X-Men 2 come to mind (pun intended). If you want to alienate many many fans, never even call him Mad Hatter throughout, just call him Jervis Tetch.

The Electric Knight

06-25-2005, 09:56 AM

The other characters, I'd like to see, but the trio from BATMAN & ROBIN - Freeze, Ivy, and Bane - can sit around and collect dust for the next 20 years as far as I see it. We basically saw all we needed to see of Poison Ivy and, even moreso, Mr. Freeze, anyway; yes, they were cartoony variations of the characters, but their basic story and character arc were there. (Honestly, once you've seen one sad Mr. Freeze origin story, you've seen them all, no matter how well done or crappy that version was.)
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Of course, other villains are priority for now, but I would never want them to cast off Mr Freeze and Ivy (especially Ivy). What we saw in that film was in no way what needed to be seen - although we got the basics (gimmick, look, M.O.) - we got no look into what makes the characters tick. We got no drama. And these two characters are really very dramatic in the comics. I want to see that eventually.

Ivy is a very rich and complex villain, when she is written in the right way. She is passionate, strong and fiery. And she has this strange attachment to Gotham - a city which really makes her heart ache. If there was anywhere she'd want to be, it isn't Gotham, yet she is constantly drawn there. It's an interesting dynamic. I think Nolan could really make her work - especially because much of what she ends up battling (in the wrong way) is crooked or dirty politicians, businesspeople and bureaucrats. She probably wouldn't be the main threat for the film - she'd appear in a more Scarecrow-like manner.

Similarly, with Freeze, we never got a sense of cold despair - a man looking for revenge. It was all camp.

I'd like to see many villains emerge in the first four films, leading to a No Man's Land film. They shouldn't be included just for villains sake of course, but because they all represent some part of Batman - what he could become if he was to step over that line. For Freeze, it's revenge and dealing with loss. For Ivy, it's his efforts to battle the injustices of the economy and society, as well as his quest for a better Gotham - which she wants too. I won't lose any sleep if they never revisit the characters, but I'd still like to see them done right. Having Ivy ready for a No Man's Land film would be good too.

Write a good script with a good theme, and see which villains fit that theme; that's what they did with BATMAN BEGINS, that's what they've done with the decent pair of SPIDER-MAN films, and that's what they should do in the future. I don't want to just shoehorn ice men and plant ladies into a film together "just because"...that's just sloppy.

-Tim
I agree - this is how the villains should be chosen. But with such a rich base (these characters work in the comics - it's just about transferring them with the same care given to Ra's, Scarecrow and Falcone), I wouldn't say that including Ivy or Freeze would be shoehorning.

TimTwoFace

06-25-2005, 12:35 PM

I agree - this is how the villains should be chosen. But with such a rich base (these characters work in the comics - it's just about transferring them with the same care given to Ra's, Scarecrow and Falcone), I wouldn't say that including Ivy or Freeze would be shoehorning.
This soon, I think it would be - especially since Nolan is trying to make Batman more realistic at the moment; thus, he'll likely go with physically realistic villains with scarred psyches more than the "mad scientist" sorts, like Freeze and Ivy.

I'd like to see them return to screen some time, too - but not yet. The fact that they were featured prominently in BATMAN & ROBIN really hurt their reputation in the eye of the common viewer. Us fans know how deep these characters truly are - thanks to BTAS more than anything else, really - but most other people would likely remember them as "that stupid ice guy that Arnold played in that dumb movie". A few movies later, this perception will change - but for now, I don't mind seeing these two taking a back seat.

I've always felt that Poison Ivy could very easily be roped into a Ra's al Ghul storyline, though - their ideals are actually quite similar.

-Tim

Batman's Biggest Fan

06-27-2005, 12:55 PM

Well apparently Batman Begins 2 (very doubtful it will be called that though) has a tenative release date for 2008, probably to avoid it from competeing with Spider-Man 3, even though that might have been interesting to see DC's cash cow and Marvel's cash cow go head to head.

Silly McGooses

06-27-2005, 01:02 PM

I read somewhere that the first draft of the next script had the working title "enter the joker" but i doubt that will be the final title, either.

JohnCrichton

06-27-2005, 01:37 PM

My friend and I are debating on the Return of Ra's and I do believe my friend smokes the crack rock.

I say it's not going to happen. The story we so complete with his end that bringing him back would cheapen the story told.

Ra's was a man driven to grief, but didn't have a loved one that Bruce had in Katie Holmes to remind him where the line was between justice and revenge.

In the end it was a battle of the two ideals and lives and Batman won out in the end. Bats mad his final move and Ra's closed his eyes and accepted his end.

I loved it.

To me, to do an about face and have him do a last minue "comic book-ish" escape would just really ruin the tight, gritty, realistic and well told story that was crafted in Batman Begins.

If this were the real immortal Ra's then I can see him esacaping to tangle with the Dark Knight another day, but in this, he was just a man that carried the name on his final mission to scare Bruce..... right?

TimTwoFace

06-27-2005, 05:04 PM

If this were the real immortal Ra's then I can see him esacaping to tangle with the Dark Knight another day, but in this, he was just a man that carried the name on his final mission to scare Bruce..... right?
For all we know, this is the real Ra's - and I prefer to think it is. That's not to say he can't die - Ra's, without his routine bathing in the Lazarus Pits, is very mortal, in fact - but it would certainly point out that he was a goner at the end of the movie.

I would love to see Ra's come back, but not for a couple movies, at least; let Batman set up shop in Gotham before we have another globe-trotting adventure.

-Tim

JohnCrichton

06-27-2005, 05:45 PM

Is there a question as to whether or not he was the real Ra's or not? I could've swore it was the Japanese guy on the throne that was who the real Ra's was... right?

Is there any reason to believe otherwise?

BatKid

06-27-2005, 08:27 PM

JohnCrichton

06-27-2005, 09:05 PM

Annnd what was said there? I don't remember hearing anything about Liam being the real Ra's.

Borg4of3

06-27-2005, 09:21 PM

Spoiler'd just in case, tho not entirely necessary methinks

Attempted excerpt from memory:
Bruce: *Looking at asian guy* "You're not Ra's. I watched him die."
Ducard: *from behind* "But is Ra's Al Ghul immortal - his methods supernatural..."
Bruce: "Or cheap parlor tricks to conceal your true identity - Ra's."
Ducard/Ra's: "Certainly a man who leaps from rooftops at night wouldn't begrudge me a dual identity."

And in case you think its another trick, his following speech made it sound like he was in charge of the League of Shadow's plans, not just during Batman's time, but in Thomas Wayne's time, and further, as well.

JohnCrichton

06-27-2005, 10:06 PM

Crud.... this looks like a case of "however you want to see it" and one of those the director will never tells.

Cuz now Ra's just seems like a name, maybe handed down and his ideals kept immortal.

Ah well... I still say the guy's dead.

John6777

06-28-2005, 11:14 AM

Latest rumor says Vincent Cassel is up for the joker. Not a bad choice indeed. It also stated he is front runner for it. Crosses Fingers for Monica Bellucci to star in BB2 as Talia!!

TimTwoFace

06-28-2005, 07:16 PM

Latest rumor says Vincent Cassel is up for the joker. Not a bad choice indeed. It also stated he is front runner for it. Crosses Fingers for Monica Bellucci to star in BB2 as Talia!!
I doubt we'll see Talia any time soon, if at all - but I do agree 100% with your casting choice for her.

-Tim

Patrick Bateman

06-28-2005, 07:42 PM

BatKid

06-28-2005, 10:09 PM

Latest rumor says Vincent Cassel is up for the joker. Not a bad choice indeed. It also stated he is front runner for it. Crosses Fingers for Monica Bellucci to star in BB2 as Talia!! Mind providing a link for that first comment? I've been dreaming of him being cast as the Joker...

Patrick Bateman

06-28-2005, 10:30 PM

Wow, if that news is true, he could be the answer to Joker fans' prayers. Just look at the guy -

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_focus/brotherhood_of_the_wolf__le_pacte_des_loups_/vincent_cassel/wolf.jpg

JohnCrichton

06-29-2005, 11:13 AM

Or Liam Neeson is the real Ra's as made obvious...
That's cool. Still just as dead. :p

John6777

06-29-2005, 04:50 PM

The News is on here

http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=14106

TimTwoFace

06-29-2005, 07:30 PM

I dunno...without seeing his films I can't really make much of a comment.

-Tim

The Penguin

06-29-2005, 08:52 PM

I dunno...without seeing his films I can't really make much of a comment.I don't know if this helps, but Cassel was "The Night Fox" François Toulour in Ocean's Twelve.

TimTwoFace

07-02-2005, 12:04 PM

Check this action out:

http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/celebs/articles/1223425.armx

Batman Timberlake
BANG

June 29, 2005

(BANG) - Justin Timberlake has been tipped to play the next 'Batman' villain.

The pop heartthrob, who is currently pursuing a Hollywood acting career, is reportedly favourite to play evil Two-Face in the follow-up movie to 'Batman Begins', which stars Christian Bale as the Caped Crusader.

A source revealed: "Justin would be a perfect choice. He is getting more and more into a film career alongside his music one."

Despite his clean-cut image, the former boyband star has already proved he can play dark characters - by his portrayal of a foul-mouthed drug dealer in the upcoming movie 'Alpha Dog'.

The film - which also stars Bruce Willis and Sharon Stone - is based on the true life story of drug dealer Jesse James Hollywood, who was suspected of kidnapping and killing a 15-year-old boy in 2000.

Justin plays Hollywood's pot-selling friend Frankie Ballenbacher.

The singer, who is romancing Hollywood beauty Cameron Diaz, won the role after impressing movie bosses with his film debut, 'Edison', in which he plays a young journalist who helps uncover corruption in a specialised police squad.

&EngCP; BANG Media International
Can we say...no? It's not even so much against the guy's acting - though I haven't seen much of it - but damn, he's just too YOUNG to play the role.

It seems like a silly rumour that was posted on the net but I thought it was interesting enough to post here. :p

-Tim

The Penguin

07-02-2005, 12:18 PM

TimTwoFace

07-02-2005, 12:23 PM

Hmmm, Justin Timberlake as Harvey Dent? I think Tim may be right in him being perhaps a little young for the role, but I think if Harvey was written properly it could work. The best choice? Most likely no, but I don't think it would be as bad as the rest of you are about to make it out to be.
Heh - well yeah, obviously. JT is one of those celebs people just love to mock just because - and I've done it, too. Honestly, I haven't seen much of his acting at all, so I can't pass judgement there. He could be a surprise, yes...but I know he can't possibly be the best choice out there.

If I'm proven wrong, then I'll be very happy. Even so, I think the WB should be more concerned with casting the Joker for the next movie, rather than who will play Harvey Dent in the next two films.

-Tim

Bruce Kent

07-02-2005, 12:26 PM

...

...

... Can we get a NO!

I mean, gosh, that would be awful.

JLU Dude

07-03-2005, 07:36 PM

I'm gonna add mythoughts, even though I'm like anyone else: NO!:mad: I hope it is a rumor. I'd like someone a later older and not a pop idol to played Harvey Dent.

DisneyBoy

07-03-2005, 08:39 PM

*throws J.T. out a window*

...care to repeat that?

PaQ

07-03-2005, 08:55 PM

I have nothing against Mr. Timberlake, but I really think if they would cast him in such a role, I have a bad feeling it would feel like a gimmick hire. He also doesn't look like what I'd imagine Harvey to look like, just my taste but hey I can hope for something better.

Bird Boy

07-03-2005, 08:57 PM

Depends on how they make him look. Obviously we think of him as blonde, short, curly-like hair...or whatever the hell he's wearing these days. Froofier hair and a shave could make him Dent-ish. It'd work for me...

-BB

BatKid

07-03-2005, 09:10 PM

This is nothin' but a BS rumor. It's not even worth any of our time commenting on imo.

John6777

07-04-2005, 10:50 AM

Supposidly Isla Fisher is up for Bale's new Love interest. She is scottish but was born in Arabia. Could she possible be Talia in the movie?

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/fox_searchlight/i_heart_huckabees/isla_fisher/iheartpreg.jpg

Phantasm

07-04-2005, 11:26 AM

TIMBERLAKE FOR DENT?!:eek: :eek: :eek:

WHATEVER lead to that idea?! This is just...too crazy a picture to wrap my mind around...
:eek:

hhmm...I'm thinking this would go here...?
And oh, Do I love Caine so much!?:anime:
http://photos.imageevent.com/cardodo/misc2/life1.jpg

DisneyBoy

07-04-2005, 12:31 PM

Nifty article :) I'll have to check that one out...

TimTwoFace

07-13-2005, 07:29 PM

I just saw on today's IMDB.com poll - a poll regarding the Joker's casting - that the likes of Alan Cumming, Tim Roth, Adrien Brody, and Johnny Depp are "in the running".

I hadn't even heard these rumours before. Where are they getting this from?

Of course, it's just a silly little poll, but still...

-Tim

Silly McGooses

07-14-2005, 10:46 AM

Hatter

07-14-2005, 10:59 AM

I've always thought that Adrien Brody would make a perfect Joker. He has the tall, gaunt look that a new live-action Joker needs. And he's a hell of an actor.

Silly McGooses

07-14-2005, 11:05 AM

i'm still hoping for Crispin Glover. I wonder when we'll finally find out. probably not for another year or so, i suppose.

BatKid

08-13-2005, 12:21 AM

Kinda OT, but this was just too cool to pass up on. From another forum:

Original

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/28345630-M.jpg

Manip

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/pieeye/photoshopjk.jpg

Christopher Eccleston for Joker. :)

BonyT

08-13-2005, 01:28 AM

Manip

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/pieeye/Jokereyebrs.jpg

Christopher Eccleston for Joker. :)That is very reminiscent of Alex Ross' artwork.

If the Joker were to end up looking like that in the Begins sequel, I'd certainly be satisfied. :)

Batboy

08-13-2005, 02:12 AM

wow, it would be GREAT if he turns out to be The Joker in the next film. He certainly looks the part. I think he's scary too :crying: and that's a good thing :).

Jack Nicholson who? :P.

BatKid

08-13-2005, 03:56 AM

Indeed. And he was supposedly up for the Scarecrow in BB, so this might be his chance to get back with Nolan...

For the new page:

Original

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/28345630-M.jpg

Manip

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b199/pieeye/photoshopjk.jpg

Christopher Eccleston for Joker. :)

Batboy

08-20-2005, 01:06 PM

Still, I think I'll stick with Adrian Brody :).

http://www.hhrf.org/magyarszo/arhiva/2004/mar/22/tarka/brody.jpg

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/oscars/75th_academy_awards_luncheon_photos/adrien_brody/lunch.jpg

BrickTamland

08-22-2005, 01:38 AM

In an interview recently Steve Carell said that he hasn't heard anything about the rumors of him playing the Joker in the next Bat film, but said he would be thrilled if offered the role. I don't know, I think he could pull it off, This man can act, He isn't the guy who plays the same role every film (Looking at you Sandler).

Chris Wood

08-22-2005, 01:41 AM

I like Carell, but those are mighty big shoes for him to fill. How about Vince Vaughn or Johnny Depp?

BrickTamland

08-22-2005, 01:49 AM

Vaughn doesn't fit the body build, Depp.....no, he's in way too much movies. Carell fits the build perfectly, even his face, & he can really wig out & cackle quite well.

Chris Wood

08-22-2005, 02:05 AM

Vaughn doesn't fit the body build, Depp.....no, he's in way too much movies. Carell fits the build perfectly, even his face, & he can really wig out & cackle quite well.

I'm not sure Vaughn's build is very different from Carell's.

The question is, will Carell have enough starpower by the time the movie is made? It's gonna take a big name to follow Nicholson.

SirLemming

08-22-2005, 02:10 AM

Johnny Depp... Nah, I just don't think so for whatever reason. I really can't explain why. He's versatile, he did a creepy white-skinned Willy Wonka, he did Jack Sparrow... But I still just don't think so.

Steve Carrell does seem like a good choice. The kind that you wouldn't think of and then you say "Of course!"

But the fact that it's starting as a rumor cosmically makes it less likely...

Michael24

08-22-2005, 02:12 AM

First off, who is Steve Carell? (And I ask that seriously, since it seems like he's somebody well-known the way you guys are talking about him. :) )

Secondly, while I'm not holding my breath for the next Batman flick after BATMAN BEGINS, I think Andrew Koenig from the BATMAN: DEAD END fan-film would be a great Joker. He was awesome as the Joker in DEAD END, and I think he'd really rock in the part with the canvas of a feature film. (And incase some don't know, Koenig is a professional actor, not just a a non-name picked for a fan-film.)

Charlie

08-22-2005, 02:20 AM

Steve Carell (http://media.filmforce.ign.com/media/763/763815/img_2984747.html), he used to be an "anchor" on the Daily Show, was one of the head News Casters in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy (the one with the gernade in the big street fight), and is the star of The 40 Year Old Virgin. With a bit of chin-puddy and something to make him a couple inches taller he could easily look the part.

Hades

08-22-2005, 08:13 AM

I hope not, that guy is a terrible actor, and there is no way he could ever pull off Joker. I'd rather have Sean Bean play Joker.

Thing is, there are way too many rumors going on right now of who will play Joker. Look at how many rumors went by of who was going to play Superman, and then they got some nobody to play him.

Fone Bone

08-22-2005, 08:17 AM

I'd trade a thousand Steve Carrell's for one Mark Hamill.

It probably won't happen, but it should.

elfwithagun

08-22-2005, 08:19 AM

Not so sure I want to see Carrell play Joker. Its a maybe.

Johnny Depp: No way! Dont want it.

Vince Vaughn: Nope. Not the right build.

Andrew Koenig: I dont know. I dont think hed be in the running.

Silly McGooses

08-22-2005, 09:56 AM

I think Steve Carrell could play the Joker. He plays a hillarious evil jerk in The Office, but I think his Joker would be akin to Nicholson's Joker; more funny than scary. I think Crispin Glover is the best choice right now.

SirLemming

08-22-2005, 10:13 AM

I'd trade a thousand Steve Carrell's for one Mark Hamill.

It probably won't happen, but it should. Obviously he sounds the part, but I really don't think he looks the part. He's gotten pretty husky lately.

And in fact, he wouldn't necessarily sound the part... voice acting is different than live-acting. Especially when it comes to Batman Begins, the least cartoony Batman adaptation of them all. That kind of Joker might not be what they're looking for. It might turn out like The Green Goblin in Spider-Man, which was shaky in that movie but would be disastrous in this movie.

Batboy

08-22-2005, 02:36 PM

I think Steve Carrell could play the Joker. He plays a hillarious evil jerk in The Office.
The TV Show? The same show that starred Kevin Conroy? :).

I was searching the Web when I found a site that featured Conroys view on Keaton's and Kilmer's Batman roles. Quite interesting.

Silly McGooses

08-22-2005, 03:16 PM

No, Kevin's not on the Office...at least not the one on NBC I'm talking about.
Where is this site you speak of? I'd love to hear what he says!

BrickTamland

08-22-2005, 06:38 PM

Before anyone says "duh", I'm not talking simply comedy. The guy is legitimately a very good dramatic actor, which he hasn't had a chance to show before this. He showed some serious range and unexpected depth in The 40 Year Old Virgin. His comedic timing is unparalleled and no one can deliver a line in hilariously awkward fashion nearly as well, but it was his straight-man scenes of pure sincerity in the movie that conveyed his considerable range and talent. He was actually quite touching in the role, as was Catherine Keener (but everyone already knows she's a great actress).

I can honestly see him being nominated for an Oscar in the future, given the right role.

Hades

08-22-2005, 08:19 PM

Perhaps, but HE IS NOT JOKER MATERIAL!!

Silly McGooses

08-22-2005, 08:59 PM

I don't think it's fair to say he's not Joker material when he's never proven or disproven himself with a Joker-like part.

BrickTamland

08-22-2005, 10:31 PM

Perhaps, but HE IS NOT JOKER MATERIAL!!

I'd much rather take him than Sean Penn

Silly McGooses

08-23-2005, 10:02 AM

Really, Crispin Glover is the only actor who's name I've heard who I think would be absolutely perfect for the part. He not only looks exactly like him (tall, bony, narrow face, creepy smile) but he plays one mean psychopath (Willard) AND he's funny (Back to the Future, The People vs. Larry Flint)

Batboy

08-23-2005, 01:02 PM

No, Kevin's not on the Office...at least not the one on NBC I'm talking about.
Where is this site you speak of? I'd love to hear what he says! Here's a link if you want to check it out: http://www.batmancollective.150m.com/castcrew/conroy.htm#quotes

And here are the comments:

"His absorbed, psychoanalytic approach to Bruce Wayne was fantastic, and the way he did a 180 degree role reversal in portraying a strong, silent force as Batman was even better. These movies are truly the highlight of Keaton's acting career." - on Michael Keaton's Batman.

"To be fair, I must give credit where credit is due. Although Kilmer is clearly no Michael Keaton - except for a few corny lines, which are mainly the writers' fault, and a slight lacking when it comes to the portrayal of a dark side, he did a much better job than I expected." - on Val Kilmer's Batman

Too bad he hasn't made any comments about Bale's performance :(.

RAGNAROK13

08-23-2005, 01:27 PM

personally im hoping to see a villian that hasnt been in one of the movies, as far as i know its down to clayface, and Mr. $careface.

DarkAngel

08-23-2005, 04:05 PM

personally im hoping to see a villian that hasnt been in one of the movies, as far as i know its down to clayface, and Mr. $careface.Clayface is a villian I don't think we'll be seeing anytime soon. He wouldn't fit in with the realism that Nolan/Goyer are going for. I don't think they'd want anything that fx heavy.

And aren't the villians pretty much set for the next two movies? Maybe after that we could see Scarface. Or even Clayface with a different director.

TimTwoFace

08-23-2005, 08:36 PM

I don't want the next two villains (Joker/Two-Face) to be interrupted at all. They deserve to be the next two, and really, they fit into the "early years" storyline the best.

Beyond that, I'm pretty open to anything. Personally, I'd love to see Clayface (as long as we get a version similar to the BTAS version, the Matt Hagen one - not one of the other five that the comics has featured). If anything, he could at least be mentioned in passing as an actor present in Gotham; it'd be some nice fanservice, and could act as a good set-up for later films.

Scarface/Ventriloquist would be great, too - but considering all the other people out there, I think the dual personality shtick may get old, especially since Two-Face is a lock to be in an earlier movie. Scarface may just seem like a cheap knock-off; wait a few movies later, and then he'd be more than welcome.

I'm up for having Killer Croc and Firefly in minor roles - the return of Mr. Zsasz would be great, too, to say nothing of the Scarecrow.

I hope Catwoman gets involved early on, too - maybe not in the next two movies, but soon after that, yes. If Nolan and Goyer are following the Loeb/Sale storylines, she'll undoubtedly show up; the fact that she's arguably the most notable female in comics would only help in promoting the film, too.

-Tim

Damien

08-23-2005, 10:42 PM

I'd like to see Selina Kyle make an appearance or two in the next film, maybe bring her in as Catwoman in the third. Didn't WB want to do this? Isn't that one reason why Catwoman wasn't really Catwoman; so we wouldn't be confused?

Road to Gotham

08-24-2005, 02:33 AM

If Nolan and Goyer were to use a Clayface, Basil Karlo would be the one they would use.
In Detective Comics #40 and #49 (I Think that was his two Golden age Comics Appearances) Basil was an a has-been actor who went Nuts. No morphing abilities.
So he would fit in nicely with what Nolan and Goyer are trying to do.
Charlton Heston would be perfect for this role.

elfwithagun

08-24-2005, 09:25 AM

Yes it would. Maybe he goes nuts from some fear gas released in the narrows.

Man, that fear gas plot in begins brings up so many possibilities.........

Batboy

08-24-2005, 02:56 PM

I like the idea of the Joker becoming "The Joker" before he and Batman run into each other. Perhaps as a result of Scarecrow's fear toxin that was released in the Narrows. They (Batman/Joker) don't necessary need to be linked to each other as in other versions of the Joker's origin (Batman '89 for instance). It adds to the mystery surrounding the Joker imo :).

Damien

08-24-2005, 03:44 PM

It's cool that he's already the Joker, and having it connected to the fear gas would be cool too, unless they go through with the Joker inadvertantly creating Two-Face. The connections are cool, but it can get to be a little much.

TimTwoFace

08-24-2005, 07:16 PM

Even though I can stomach the Joker "creating" Two-Face - or at least giving Harvey the acid trip to bring that dark personality to the surface - I'd prefer to see Falcone be directly responsible.

The Joker and Two-Face would still have an intense connection and rivalry - both when Harvey is the upstanding DA and when Harvey is the underworld kingpin - but preferably, I don't want to see Joker throwing the acid into Harvey's face.

-Tim

BonyT

08-25-2005, 09:46 AM

Even though I can stomach the Joker "creating" Two-Face - or at least giving Harvey the acid trip to bring that dark personality to the surface - I'd prefer to see Falcone be directly responsible.

-TimActually, the Joker "creating" Two-Face doesn't bother me nearly as much as the whole Joker-and-Batman-mutually-creating-each-other thing from Burton's '89 Batman did. While that device did make for a tight full-circle storyline for Burton's film, it also forced the demise of Batman's most important enemy. I MUCH prefer that Batman and Joker not be directly involved in each other's "origin" story at all.

The Begins franchise is off to a great start. I'm really excited to see how things develop with the rest of the movies in the series, especially with Joker & Two-Face in the next two films.

James Harvey

09-27-2005, 05:57 PM

From our good friends over at Batman-On-Film (http://batman-on-film.com/batmovienews.html):

The title may be...BATMAN STRIKES. Or BATMAN ATTACKS. These are two possible titles for the sequel that I've heard from more than one source. Now, these are possibilites and that should be kept in mind at this time. Not too bad IMO...

So just how far along is the sequel? I posed that question to a longtime, trusted "insider." Here's what he had to say:

"This film is further along than people think. Hell, you've got actors (and their agents) scrambling to get a role in the sequel - it's going to be huge! Just look at all the talk about casting The Joker already. There are a lot of actors that covet that role.

From what I've heard, Nolan [director Christopher] and Goyer [screenwriter David] knew what they wanted to do in the sequel before BATMAN BEGINS was filmed. I know that Nolan hasn't signed on, yet, but that is just a matter of time. This is why you are hearing about cast candidates and possible screentests. Things are lined up so that when that [Nolan returning - Jett] does happen, they'll be ready to roll.

There is no doubt that they have their ducks in a row."

I've got to agree with this source on this one, based on everthing I've heard so far. It seems that once Mr. Nolan says "Let's go" officially, they'll be able to hit the ground running.

The sequel is expected to touch down in 2008.

Silly McGooses

09-27-2005, 06:01 PM

"Batman Attacks" better damn well not be the title:shrug: . That's just terrible. "Batman Strikes" could be passably acceptable.

Azrael24

09-27-2005, 06:03 PM

batman strikes?? batman attacks??

sounds kinda corny but okay

i dont want it to be in 2008!!! it needs to be in 2007! now that i relize, it, itll be coming out when i graduate:sweat:

TimTwoFace

09-27-2005, 07:08 PM

"BATMAN ATTACKS" sounds hideous.

"BATMAN STRIKES" can work, though; I know a lot of us initially thought that "BATMAN BEGINS" was a dumb title (and really, it sort of is), but it grew on us anyway. BATMAN STRIKES works nicely enough, if we're going to keep in the tradition of simple two-word Bat-movie titles.

I'd rather see the title focus on the theme of the movie, though; use a word that can relate to his arch nemesis of the film (Joker) but not obviously so - hopefully a word that can be interpretted in two ways, one on the surface and one with depth.

That's why I thought "BATMAN FOREVER" was a cool title. That's my favourite simple two-word title so far.

-Tim

Silly McGooses

09-27-2005, 07:12 PM

You already know some critic who thinks he's exceptionally clever will write a bad review with the headline "Batman Strikes Out!"

TimTwoFace

09-27-2005, 07:43 PM

You already know some critic who thinks he's exceptionally clever will write a bad review with the headline "Batman Strikes Out!"
True...so we need a title that can't be turned into something negative.

"BATMAN IS AWESOME"

...no, that could be turned into "awful".

"BATMAN IS RAD"

There we go. :)

-Tim

Hatter

09-27-2005, 10:02 PM

"BATMAN STRIKES" is already taken; it's the name of DC's "The Batman" comic.
(Jeez, I'd expect the people at TZ to know that. :p)

I've got a problem, though... Since Ra's al Ghul was announced as the villain of BB, and now after seeing how they handled him, I've been 100% convinced that he's going to return. He just has too much unexplored potential. BB was little more than an introduction to him. I'm thinking in terms of a trilogy here; I can see him having just a cameo in BB2, but how do you resolve his storyline AND Two-Face's in BB3? Any trilogy with Ra's al Ghul has to end with a sword duel in an exotic land. How would that work? Batman defeats Dent at the 90-minute mark, then hops in the Batwing and shoots overseas for the climax?

They have to be planning more with Ra's. They just have to.

TimTwoFace

09-27-2005, 10:41 PM

I doubt Ra's will be back in the next two movies; there's no need for him to come back yet. If he did, I'd rather have a movie feature him, and explore him deeper, rather than tag him onto the end of a 2 hour movie. I'd feel rather cheated that way - especially since we have two excellent villains forthcoming, anyway.

And yes, I knew that BATMAN STRIKES was eerily similar to the comic book based on the current animated series. :p

-Tim

Spider-Man

09-28-2005, 05:51 AM

For all we know The Batman Strikes! could be cancelled by the time the next movie is released leaving Batman Strikes safe to use. I hope WB realize it's going to get increasingly difficult to keep making these Batman [blank] titles for each movie.

sdp

09-28-2005, 10:14 AM

Robin

09-28-2005, 10:57 AM

and i doubt it will be that hard to find the batman ____ for other movies.Spider-Man does have a point. If WB expects this franchise to continue on, I don't think they can keep with the "Batman [blank]" name. I'm sure all they have to do is break out a thesaurus and do a little research, but if they keep it up these names are going to get sillier as the franchise rolls on. I still would've preferred if "Batman Begins" was simply called "Batman."

sdp

09-28-2005, 11:55 AM

there was already a "batman" even if this is the "new" version..

i think they could still come up with spiffy names...

any title is better than just adding "2" or "3" to the title.

TimTwoFace

09-28-2005, 07:23 PM

any title is better than just adding "2" or "3" to the title.
I agree; that's just boring. I really wish SPIDER-MAN 2 kept its original title, "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN".

Maybe in the future, the WB will have to break out the longer, more wordy titles, as they did with their four animated feature films thus far; sure, some of them are needlessly wordy ("BATMAN & MR. FREEZE: SUB-ZERO, rather than just "BATMAN: SUB-ZERO") but they at least got the point across. "MASK OF THE PHANTASM", for example, is a simple title that works.

-Tim

James Harvey

10-18-2005, 01:48 AM

With the Oct. 18th home video release of Batman Begins upon us, some new rumors concerning the next installment have bubbled to the surface courtesy of Batman On Film (http://www.batman-on-film.com):

- Nolan is signed for two more Bat-films and the sequel has been given the greenlight. The very first stages of pre-production have started. No official annoucement yet.

- Filming may begin in the Spring of '07.

- "Now as far as casting goes Paul Bettany is a serious contender for The Joker, but so is this Lachy Hulme fellow. From what I heard Nolan was the one who first expressed interest in Hulme."

- Nolan may work on the sequel as a side project while filming THE PRESTIGE.

And now some spoilerific rumors courtesy of the same source:

- "Linus Roache is most certainly back seeing as how there may be some flashbacks showing Thomas Waynes' ties to 'Ambiguous Mob Boss,' and a scene showing the relationship The Waynes' had with the late parents of 'The heir.'"

- "The Joker will be the central villain, although he isn't directly connected to the other 'villain plots.'"

- "The other major villain, 'The heir,' will be more a villain to Wayne himself than Batman - causing a rather interesting sitiuation where Bruce will find all his identities under assult."

- Loeb and Flass will return. The latter is no longer a member of the GPD.

- "In light of Nolan's ambiguous comment about Robin. I know for a fact that [currently, Robin is NOT in the mix]."

- "Let me clarify what I said about The Joker's apperence. As far as his physical apperence goes, it seems pretty faitful to the comics - although it's never really explained why he will look the way he does. So no make up or permanent smiles on his face. As far as his costume, by 'exact translation' I mean the kind of translation that has been seen in 'The Animated Series or Burton's 'Batman.' I never said anything saying that we might not see The Joker in purple at some point."

I'm sure we'll be reading more rumors for Batman Begins 2 soon enough!

Spider-Man

10-25-2005, 01:51 PM

Batman On Film (http://www.batman-on-film.com/batmovienews.html) says the rumored release date for Batman Begins 2 will be June 20th, 2008.

TimTwoFace

10-25-2005, 10:24 PM

Excellent - though I'm not holding my breath. Remember, BATMAN BEGINS was initially set for a June 17 release, and it was pushed up by two days. :D

I hope the second one does better at the box office - not that $200 Mill is anything to be ashamed of.

-Tim

A.J

10-28-2005, 11:04 AM

Any updates about the new movie? :crying:

The Penguin

10-28-2005, 03:31 PM

Any updates about the new movie? :crying:The first one just came out on DVD, it's not like the news is going to come fast and furious.

A.J

10-28-2005, 03:54 PM

The first one just came out on DVD, it's not like the news is going to come fast and furious.
Speculations doesnt hurts...besides, tell that to everyone who posted on the last 10+ pages of this thread :shrug:

The Penguin

10-28-2005, 06:43 PM

Speculations doesnt hurts...besides, tell that to everyone who posted on the last 10+ pages of this thread :shrug:I didn't say there hasn't been any news/rumors, but there hasn't been much lately which is why there aren't "any updates about the new movie".

Read up, there are new posts with news from just 10 days ago.

Silly McGooses

07-03-2006, 08:35 PM

THE OFFICIAL SITE FOR BATMAN: ESCALATION IS UP!
Turn up your volume for full effect of the teaser site
Here it is:
http://www.batmanescalation.com/

David64

07-03-2006, 10:07 PM

THE OFFICIAL SITE FOR BATMAN: ESCALATION IS UP!
Turn up your volume for full effect of the teaser site
Here it is:
http://www.batmanescalation.com/

:confused: Is that a joke... or is this true?

BatKid

07-04-2006, 12:06 AM

:confused: Is that a joke... or is this true?
:confused: Are you joking....or are you for real?

Knight

07-04-2006, 12:14 AM

Come on. Its a joke.

The Penguin

07-04-2006, 12:18 AM

:lol:

Can't... stop... laughing...

:lol:

David64

07-04-2006, 07:13 AM

:confused: Are you joking....or are you for real?

I was joking :sweat:

ManicWebb

07-04-2006, 02:26 PM

THE OFFICIAL SITE FOR BATMAN: ESCALATION IS UP!
Turn up your volume for full effect of the teaser site
Here it is:
http://www.batmanescalation.com/
:lol:
Beautiful stuff, right there.

Mr.LethalWeapon

07-20-2006, 07:07 AM

According to Latino Review (http://www.latinoreview.com/news.php?id=736) the role of the Joker will be played by Heath Ledger.

Knight

07-20-2006, 07:30 AM

Nothing about Heath Ledger has ever screamed "Joker" to me so if this is correct it will be interesting to see how this all works out.

Wolf Boy2

07-20-2006, 08:07 AM

I knew the rumors about Mark Hamil were false.

Still.... I wish they'd just get someone with a really Jokery face and dub Hamil's voice in (a la James Earl Jones and Darth Vader).

Icer

07-20-2006, 08:32 AM

Not a choice I was expecting...I have faith in their selection though. The first movie had a great cast, even Holmes was alright.

rggkjg1

07-20-2006, 08:57 AM

WHAT???? :confused: i'm not upset, just in shock. this ranks up there in my "top 10 random moments of all time". seriously, how is this not random?? i don't think i ever saw his name in a list of candidates for the part.

Moto Pete

07-20-2006, 09:37 AM

ummmm ok i guess

but here comes the Brokeback Joker jokes

Simpler Simon

07-20-2006, 09:51 AM

I can easily see a Joker in that face.

If this is true, then let production begin! I don't know how anyone can doubt the casting after the success of the first one.

Sharklady

07-20-2006, 10:35 AM

Ledger has a tough act to follow- Jack Nicholson's Joker was *brilliant.*

But I see some grounds for hope in this photo:

http://people.smartchat.net.au/~jhml/heathledger/Images/heath10.jpg

Hades

07-20-2006, 12:32 PM

Well, if he can act the way he did in Brother's Grimm, I am happy.

DisneyBoy

07-20-2006, 12:49 PM

???????

This just doesn't sound true to me.

BatKid

07-20-2006, 01:03 PM

...err, wow. I'm speechless. Look, I'll be the first to say LR is one of the most reliable for film news (they were first to get a script of BB after all), but this COMPLETELY came out of left-field.

The most premiere Batman movie rumor site (BOF) has mentioned absolutely nothing about Heath even in the running. And for such a huge role, it's very weird to cast without a complete script. Nolan, from what I understand is still in post-production with Prestige, in which Bale and Caine star in. So, I don't see how any of this fits. They could be doing all of this in secret...but something about it just doesn't seem right.

Just remember it won't be the first time where something that seems "it's a done deal" goes the other way. Bale seemed to be out of the running too, and it looked like Hugh Dancy was going to be the next Batman. Of course, we all knew how that turned out. The only thing that's been "confirmed" is Heath has been offered the part. Not given. I'll wait for more news.