CG and it's role in the future of Batman films

[ZorBrak]

I was thinking about CG films today, as of now they have mainly only been created for younger audiences, with the exception of the Final Fantasy movie, But the more I thought about the subject the more I realized how benefitial it could be to a Batman film series. If Batman were done in CG it would TAKE EFFORT to make the film as bad as Batman and Robin, becuase you wouldn't have that same group of cooky people working on it, you'd get the more geeky people...this is a good thing :). What you would get are animators and comic book writers, who know their stuff, especially when it comes to the Dark Knight. You could have writers such as Paul Dini write scripts for the films and make them a stand alone series, much more mature than TAS. Many graphical sequences could be much more easily done through the digital process, and it might even actually save the WB money, while also looking good at the same time.
What this film could do, is finally break the perception the majority of Americans have that animation is only for children, the problem is no one is willing to make a first step after seeing what happened to Final Fantasy in theatres. While you can't blame them, it's obvious they are merely toying with CG animation right now, when they could be doing so much more. I think a CG Batman film series could be excellent given the right talents, and those talents are currently in abundance in the animation and comic feilds. No more baby faced actors as Batman, no off character portrayles, no radical changes in character appearences (remember when Harvey Dent magically turned white between Batman Returns and Batman Forever?) or misleading performances, silly puns, know it all directors, stupidly bright neon, worries about contracts and actors demanding outrageous dough for sequels, it would be just pure Batman.
Casting would be much easier as well becuase if a voice talent for some reason has to miss an appearence in a later film, sound alikes are less noticable than new actors (ex: Billie Dee Williams-Tomy Lee Jones...what?!). To back up my statements I recommend you all check out the videos ofthe upcoming game Batman: Dark Tomorrow, and you will see just how good Batman and Gotham city look in CG, it can easily capturethe Dark Gothic feel needed to create the perfect bat film. phew! that was long! hope I didn't repeat myself too much....

[Patrick Bateman]

That sounds promising to me. I have looked at screens for Dark Tomorrow (which I MUST buy when it comes out) and it truly is impressive. You have my vote!

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

It's an interesting concept, but I'm not convinced that CGI is the solution to any and all Batman-film problems. Some of my reservation is due to the state of CGI now -- "real" people still don't feel convincing in CGI. A good actor can do loads of emotion with purely facial muscles or small changes in their eyes (see Tom Hanks), which would take a huge amount of computing power to do accurately and still wouldn't "look" right. This is especially important for someone like Batman, where the eyes, lower jaw, and body language are all you have to "read" the character.

The other thing I have an issue with is the statement that geeks doing the movie would make it better. Geeks may be working on the movie, but odds are the usual Hollywood hacks would be writing it. Also, the suits still write the checks and can force edits on the geeks in post-production. Scratch the surface of Hollywood history and you'll find a long chain of movies, good and bad, that suffered tremendously under studio interference. CGI, IMO, won't affect this.

Finally, if the writing is good, there's a sharp mind behind the visualization, and you get good actors, you can do a good Batman movie with a flip-book and a tape-recorder. CGI is just a way to shoot a movie, just as animation and live-action are. Technology can never be seen as a silver bullet to solve character or story problems. This is something Pixar understands, and pitifully few others (Square Pictures and George Lucas) do.

-- Ed/Ace

[Weatherman]

Good points Ace. Hmm, maybe we could get Pixar to make a Batamn film when they go independant. :rolleyes:



Anyway, a CGI Batman COULD work, but just making it CGI would not solve all of the problems if they can't get the Shumacher team of bufoons away from the production. And quite frankly, I just don't see WB giving up quite enough of the control over the franchise to let a CGI project like that get any real steam going. WB is still married to the "cartoons are for kids" mentality, even if CN isn't.

[Webryder]

You made vry good points and while your argument is sound.....I still really want Batman to be done in live-action. Having actors play him on film, in a wierd 8 year old mindset kinda way, makes me feel closer to thinking these characters could almost exist in real life. And while the comics and animation mediums are great for what they are and have produced arguably the best rendition of the Batman character to date, I'm not ready to give up on a real life version just yet. I know for most of you (including me) it's been a frustrating wait with disappoint after disappoint from Hollywood concerning their treatment of comic adaptation movies BUT......and I'll argue this point to my last able keystroke......

A expertly made real life visual Batman could be enuff to blow what we've seen from the animated version out of the water......and I really believe that.

In the hands of really good passionate directors, writers, actors and other movie people, Batman can finally get the treatment on film Superman got nearly a quarter of a century ago that will make it have been worth the wait.

--Guaranteed ;)

[TimTwoFace]

I don't know where I picked this up, but I heard somewhere that at one time the idea for an animated CGI Bat-movie was being tossed about.

Anyway, I think a 100% CGI movie would be great. I was personally impressed on how well the CGI sequences in SUB-ZERO turned out, especially considering their tight budget. I've played BATMAN: VENGEANCE from start to finish and there is a lot of good CGI work in there, too, especially the FMV sequences.

It'll be only a matter of time before we see this happen. The potential for CGI films is incredible. It looks like that, nowadays, most of the animated films that make any impact on the world at all HAVE to be CGI. What was the last block-buster Disney movie (since 1995, when TOY STORY came out) that WAS both successful AND a great movie? I certainly haven't seen it. Now the other companies are joining the fray with the likes of SHREK, FINAL FANTASY, and whatnot...if the WB were to do this, I think a Bat-project (TV series or film, even if it's just direct-to-video) would be the way to go.

:-)

-Tim

[Webryder]

Yeah Tim that sounds fine and dandy but the question ZorBrak seems to be asking is if CGI should be done instead of live action

[TimTwoFace]

Yeah...well if we're going with INSTEAD of live-action, I'll say no. As great as CGI work can and will get in the future, I don't think anything can replace real actors.

It would be an interesting project, though. :)

-Tim

[Webryder]

Yeah, maybe someday, who knows? If this movie does the type of B.O. business I think it will just imagine all the Batman/Superman related projects that'll get a re-consideration because of it.

You there's a rumor the website Batman-on-film is floating around that even says the next stand alone Superman and Batman films will probably be geared to e prequels to this movie.

so I think alot of stuff is riding on whether this movie does well or not and if it does........

another couple Batman and/or Superman series

more toys

more DTVs

of course more MOVIES :D

the sky is really the limit.......

What I'm hoping they don't do is base whether the stand alone films get made off of how much money this one pulls in :eek:

[The Dark Knight]

Well, the latest rumor is that there will be a computer animated TMNT movie in the future. If it gets made and is a success then WB might consider taking the Bat into CGI, but I would rather have a good live-action Bat film.

[Salvor]

Originally posted by TimTwoFace
Anyway, I think a 100% CGI movie would be great. I was personally impressed on how well the CGI sequences in SUB-ZERO turned out, especially considering their tight budget. I've played BATMAN: VENGEANCE from start to finish and there is a lot of good CGI work in there, too, especially the FMV sequences.

It'll be only a matter of time before we see this happen. The potential for CGI films is incredible. It looks like that, nowadays, most of the animated films that make any impact on the world at all HAVE to be CGI. What was the last block-buster Disney movie (since 1995, when TOY STORY came out) that WAS both successful AND a great movie? I certainly haven't seen it. Now the other companies are joining the fray with the likes of SHREK, FINAL FANTASY, and whatnot...if the WB were to do this, I think a Bat-project (TV series or film, even if it's just direct-to-video) would be the way to go.
-Tim
I gotta say I find your position to be a bit odd. I mean, if there's one thing that all the Batman fans have always considered "great", it's the 2D-animated movies Timm and his crew have provided us with. BTAS has pleased pretty much every fan I know, so there isn't need for CG, is there? Do you pay that much attention to the financial "success" of the movies? Because, to my mind, it doesn't mean much (on a totally different matter, see ID4 for instance)

[Jedigreedo]

Only CGI Batman movie I would want would be one based off the Hasbro BatLink figures. :)

[Trent Lane]

After seeing how great Final Fantasy looked, I think it's be cool to see Batman done in CGI. Even if it was something short, it'd be worth it. Get Kevin Conroy to do the voice and we're all set! :p

[Weatherman]

I couldn't see Batman done in the FF style. One of the strenghts of animation is the fact that it is ANIMATION. Notice in FF, the monsters looked quite a bit more "real" and convicing both visually and in movement then the humans. If Batman were done that way, I'm not sure if it would even be watchable given the kenetic nature of the character. Maybe if WETA, the former employess of The Sercert Lab (responsible for Reign of Fire's effect before Disney broke them up), Pixar or PDI did the work, MAYBE we could get a convicing CGI Batman, but not with the process used by Squaresoft Pictures. Who want's another wooden manequin Batman ala Joel Schumacher?

[Nightwing]

Originally posted by Webryder
You made vry good points and while your argument is sound.....I still really want Batman to be done in live-action. Having actors play him on film, in a wierd 8 year old mindset kinda way, makes me feel closer to thinking these characters could almost exist in real life.

I'm with both those for and against a CGI Batman movie, but this point I can't agree with. That's just the power of a perfectly done CGI movie. When they're done right you almost don't even need live action elements at all, because the concept was made to be so real, the CGI just....clicked. That'd almost be like saying how pen and ink animation wouldn't be as good as live action (where the opposite of that is true, from Batman's movie experience).

But because of the fact that I see no differences and only similarities in CGI and live action movies, then I see nothing different in the worries about a CGI Batman movie doing well and a live action Batman movie doing well. There are pros and cons of going with both. For example, for a Clayface picture CGI might have a small amount more pros than cons. But like I said, still has to be done right though. Wouldn't want it looking like the characters are having trouble moving. :p

So anyway, for that reason I could go either way, just as long as it's done right. That's what's most important! Batman deserves it!!

[ZorBrak]

I'm not saying I want live action to not be considered, I'm not saying that at all. I'm all for letting WB give live action some more tries, I'm only saying CG has alot more potential pros than cons when positioned against a live action Bat film, and for quality assurance it would be a better bet. In terms of overall satisfaciton, we'd ALL love to see a live action film done right, then it would most definatley be more appealing than CG, but I think it's much more likely in today's hollywood that a live one would be less impressive. The pro's I see in CG for Batman is that a movie series could go for decades with as many installments as something like 007, and never have to worry about changing appearences, becuase all the actors, cities, and vehicles are digital. Digitally created actors and cities are not props that deteriorate or age over time. What they are are files that could be used over and over saving time, effort and money on WB's part, while also giving us a better porduct as in the long run they'd have more time to emphasize on story. maybe CG is not as readily able to undertake such a task as to do multiple lines of Batman films today, but years down the road, this could be a very promising concept.
Another advantage is with the voice actors, it's harder to notice aging just by a voice. WB wouldn't have to pay rich baby faced actors gobs of money and then double it for sequels, and spend 2 years negotitating before filming. I'm not saying to short the payment to the voice actors, I'm just saying they would be more co-opertable than someone like Matt Damon who would ask for a couple million too many. If however, a voice actor does pull a Damon they can be easily replaced, sometimes the changes wouldn't even be noticable.