Is there a more tragic and thirst inducing Trilogy than Nolan's Batman?

[Kill Dat Noize]

I will agree with that to a point but Man of Steel is a hit, regardless of how we want to qualify it or not, it's a hit movie. Batman is their biggest character so of course they're going to use him more, that's just logical but that doesn't mean Superman isn't a big character. Iron Man still isn't as big as Spider-man but it doesn't mean he isn't big. Superman is in damn near every DC Animated movie, had a role in Lego movie which was fun, and I still see that logo everywhere, whether its on people's shirts or rims, or just stickers in their car. Smallville had a 10 year run, etc. The difference is, and this is the problem with superman as a character, is that it's hard to translate that character who stands for truth, justice, nobility, etc to a generation of people who are jaded and a tad cynical.

Clark by his nature, is always going to do the right thing and doesn't have many flaws (he has them though) and it's hard for people to relate. Batman is everywhere because people can relate to a guy who's just a guy and is trying to do the right thing. It's harder to relate to a guy who's biggest issue is Lois Lane is in love with one of his persona's instead of the other. Batman has problems, spiderman has problems, and they're both extremely relatable to the common man. Superman is a god and it's tough to relate to gods and no matter how "good" a movie is or isn't that's tough to relate to in 2014.

have they not pulled it off with captain america? is captain america not the same kind of cheery eyed ultimate do gooder as superman is?

it is not hard at all to translate superman as a character. it only becomes hard when you try and CHANGE WHO THAT CHARACTER is.

as long as the world is in need of superheroes then it will be in need of superman. why? because he's the greatest of them all. perhaps one of these days a great movie will come along and remind people of that fact.

 

[MartyMcFly]

have they not pulled it off with captain america? is captain america not the same kind of cheery eyed ultimate do gooder as superman is?

it is not hard at all to translate superman as a character. it only becomes hard when you try and CHANGE WHO THAT CHARACTER is.

as long as the world is in need of superheroes then it will be in need of superman. why? because he's the greatest of them all. perhaps one of these days a great movie will come along and remind people of that fact.

They've done it with Cap by putting a good cast of characters around him to show that dichotomy. Not a movie focused solely on him and that's the difference. Cap 2 is as much an Avengers sequel as it is a Cap sequel if not more so.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

They've done it with Cap by putting a good cast of characters around him to show that dichotomy. Not a movie focused solely on him and that's the difference. Cap 2 is as much an Avengers sequel as it is a Cap sequel if not more so.

was batman forever not a batman sequel because of robin?

fury, widow and falcon were basically sidekicks.

it was still a cap movie.

and if marvel could make cap work, then WB/DC should be able to make superman work.

 

[MartyMcFly]

was batman forever not a batman sequel because of robin?

fury, widow and falcon were basically sidekicks.

it was still a cap movie.

and if marvel could make cap work, then WB/DC should be able to make superman work.

You're missing my point breh: It's easier to make a character trait distinct by contrasting it with opposing views and that becomes a lot easier when you're playing off of guys like Nick Fury, Black Widow, Bucky, Falcon, etc. A LOT easier. Man of Steel didn't have that luxury to do that and it becomes easier to make his character more distinct when you're juxtaposing him with other heroes and how they see the world, hence Batman and Wonder Woman. Cap has been in two group ensembles where you're able to get a clear picture of who he is, what he represents, and what he stands for, much more than you did in the first Cap movie because they were able to add depth to the broad strokes they painted in the first Cap movie. If the new movie doesn't do that, then I feel like your feelings are justified but as of now, I think they've done a good job with laying the groundwork for a character who's still finding himself and trying to figure out how he fits in the universe

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

You're missing my point breh: It's easier to make a character trait distinct by contrasting it with opposing views and that becomes a lot easier when you're playing off of guys like Nick Fury, Black Widow, Bucky, Falcon, etc. A LOT easier. Man of Steel didn't have that luxury to do that and it becomes easier to make his character more distinct when you're juxtaposing him with other heroes and how they see the world, hence Batman and Wonder Woman. Cap has been in two group ensembles where you're able to get a clear picture of who he is, what he represents, and what he stands for, much more than you did in the first Cap movie because they were able to add depth to the broad strokes they painted in the first Cap movie. If the new movie doesn't do that, then I feel like your feelings are justified but as of now, I think they've done a good job with laying the groundwork for a character who's still finding himself and trying to figure out how he fits in the universe

so wait lemme get this straight.

are you implying that the only way to successfully translate these characters is by featuring them alongside other superheroes?

 

[MartyMcFly]

so wait lemme get this straight.

are you implying that the only way to successfully translate these characters is by featuring them alongside other superheroes?

I'm saying that when you're taking the little steps like most of these movies are, in making these movies like TV shows in the sense that you get a little development here, then a little more the next time and a little more the next time, a group setting is one of the best ways to do that because you're clearly not getting everything up front. Not all of these characters are fully formed like Tony was. Cap wasn't fully formed after the first movie, Bruce wasn't, Thor wasn't either. I don't completely agree with the approach studios are taking but that's how it is. MOST of these characters are being defined by being in an ensemble: all of the guardians, black widow, Thor, Cap, and even Hawkeye to a degree, are getting more character development due to the group they are a part of.

The other way to do it, and the way I'd prefer, is you make the world they're a part of different enough where they standout and that world can be as small as a school or as large as the city or state they inhabit. In Batman Begins, they did it by showing Bruce lived in a city filled with criminals and liars, even the cops were dirty; he was the one who was going to rise above it. Man of Steel didn't afford that opportunity to do that because the beef between Zod and Superman was a tad more nuanced than "here's the bad guy, here's the good guy" plus just the way Nolan and Snyder decided to paint the world as a more complex place that isn't black and white.They aimed for something a tad more complex and whether that worked for you or not, I can't speak for it, but that's the direction they went.

 

[WeDemBoyz]

The Dark Knight Rises dropped the ball massively though.

That whole film was a clusterfukk and as years go on it feels more and more weak.

Thank you.

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

The other way to do it, and the way I'd prefer, is you make the world they're a part of different enough where they standout and that world can be as small as a school or as large as the city or state they inhabit. In Batman Begins, they did it by showing Bruce lived in a city filled with criminals and liars, even the cops were dirty; he was the one who was going to rise above it. Man of Steel didn't afford that opportunity to do that because the beef between Zod and Superman was a tad more nuanced than "here's the bad guy, here's the good guy" plus just the way Nolan and Snyder decided to paint the world as a more complex place that isn't black and white.They aimed for something a tad more complex and whether that worked for you or not, I can't speak for it, but that's the direction they went.

and this speaks to one of MOS's largest failures.

it never took the time to tell us why the world needed superman. why WE needed superman.

without batman, gotham would be corrupt and ridden with crime. that world needs batman.

in MOS the world is just fine before superman. in fact superman's arrival makes it WORSE.

 

[MartyMcFly]

and this speaks to one of MOS's largest failures.

it never took the time to tell us why the world needed superman. why WE needed superman.

without batman, gotham would be corrupt and ridden with crime. that world needs batman.

in MOS the world is just fine before superman. in fact superman's arrival makes it WORSE.

I can agree with that to an extent. But again, they went for something more alien. Superman was needed to stop Zod, that's it. Like I said, when you're telling stories in this fashion (long form) then not everything will be obvious right off the break, not everything will be stated right now. With Lex coming out of hiding (or wherever he was) thats when you can get a sense of why he's still needed. That's always been the argument for superman in the comics though: These bad things didn't start happening until you arrived. Brainiac wasn't an issue until you showed up..same with Deathstroke, same with any of your other villains. And maybe, just maybe, Lex wouldn't be who he is now if you didn't show up

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

I can agree with that to an extent. But again, they went for something more alien. Superman was needed to stop Zod, that's it. Like I said, when you're telling stories in this fashion (long form) then not everything will be obvious right off the break, not everything will be stated right now. With Lex coming out of hiding (or wherever he was) thats when you can get a sense of why he's still needed. That's always been the argument for superman in the comics though: These bad things didn't start happening until you arrived. Brainiac wasn't an issue until you showed up..same with Deathstroke, same with any of your other villains. And maybe, just maybe, Lex wouldn't be who he is now if you didn't show up

yea but come on how easy is it to make a fukkin superman movie in 2014.

we got fukkin climate change, natural disasters, failing economies, nations at war, greed, corruption, hope lost on all fronts, etc..... superman could fight all these battles.

we need superman to come save the day.

i don't know what's so hard to understand about this. a real superman movie would kick down the fukkin towers.

 

[MartyMcFly]

yea but come on how easy is it to make a fukkin superman movie in 2014.

we got fukkin climate change, natural disasters, failing economies, nations at war, greed, corruption, hope lost on all fronts, etc..... superman could fight all these battles.

we need superman to come save the day.

i don't know what's so hard to understand about this. a real superman movie would kick down the fukkin towers.

That's not the guy you have making the movie breh and even then, just because we have all that doesn't mean that people are going to believe Superman is the guy to fix all that. You need to find a fine balance between entertaining and preaching or you lose people. I'm not going to believe superman can help stem climate change but I would believe that he can help with greed and corruption, which again, is when Lex comes in.

 

[Liu Kang]

I think we all need to take into effect that after Heath Ledger died Nolan had a hand tied behind his back. He was planning on ending the trilogy with the Joker. Not Bane. He took like what? 3 years to cobble together TDR from it original was supposed to be?

wonder if he had a script already for part 3 w. ledger. would like to see what ideas they had. i like bane but the plot was ridiculous.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/did-christopher-nolan-ori_b_1685043.html

Did Christopher Nolan Originally Intend for the Joker to Appear inThe Dark Knight Rises?
Posted: 07/19/2012 1:10 pm EDT Updated: 09/17/2012 5:12 am EDT
By Mark Hughes, screenwriter and Forbes blogger

This is a tricky question because there are really two ways to look at it.

First and foremost, Christopher Nolan didn't technically "intend" anything for a third film, because The Dark Knight was written and filmed on its own and without any direct view toward a sequel. Mr. Nolan didn't know if he'd want to ever make another one. It took a lot of convincing by Warner Brothers to get him to come back for the second film anyway, and his attitude is to approach each film as a stand-alone production and not think about what comes next.

Christopher Nolan almost didn't come back to make this third film, remember. He was very close to walking away completely after making The Dark Knight. He returned only because of the long months spent by himself and David Goyer drafting a story that made Mr. Nolan feel compelled to return and make this new film.

So on the one hand, then, Christopher Nolan did not "intend" for the Joker to appear in The Dark Knight Rises because Mr. Nolan didn't have a specific intention to even make a third film at all, and the story for it only developed later.

Now, on the OTHER hand, upon completion of the film, some people close to the production have said that Christopher Nolan's work with Heath Ledger resulted in a close friendship between them and an immense respect and love for what Mr. Ledger did in bringing the Joker to life in the film. From that, there was -- again, according to some people who worked on the film -- a very broad and general sense that IF a third film was made, then whatever else it was about, Heath Ledger would probably be asked to come back and reprise his role as the Joker in some form or fashion.

What form or fashion, nobody knows, because it was just a very general impression of, "If we make another one of these films, we'll probably want that Joker to be part of it somehow." There was no story, no specific role the Joker would play, and not even any certainty or more specific talk of whether there even really would BE a third film.

Some people mistakenly believe there was actually a story or outline for a third film featuring the Joker. What they are talking about, however, is that way before any script or story was written for The Dark Knight, David Goyer had (sometime afterBatman Begins) drafted an outline of an idea for two films that would involve the Joker. The first would have been the Joker rampaging in Gotham and being caught, and the second film would have featured Harvey Dent prosecuting the Joker. During the trial in this second film idea, the Joker would throw acid or something in Dent's face, turning him into Two-Face, and thus giving the third film a rampaging Two-Face for a villain.

That was the very rough idea sketched out by David Goyer in the aftermath ofBatman Begins. But it was just the basic idea, and parts of it were kept and merged together into one single idea, which became part of the story in The Dark Knight. So the rumor that there was a third film planned with the Joker is just a misunderstanding about the early concepts written by Mr. Goyer for films afterBatman Begins, and those concepts all got into The Dark Knight and none were left over for any planned third film whatsoever.

Christopher Nolan wasn't sure he'd ever want to make another Batman film afterThe Dark Knight, and he had no specific plans to do so. He didn't have a story or an intention to make a third film, so he had no intention or plan for the Joker appearing in any such third film either. But it can probably be said that after working with Heath Ledger, in the time prior to Mr. Ledger's tragic death, Christopher Nolan probably looked at this film he was now putting together and editing and thought, "Wow, if I ever come back for a third film, I hope Heath will come back as well."

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

That's not the guy you have making the movie breh and even then, just because we have all that doesn't mean that people are going to believe Superman is the guy to fix all that. You need to find a fine balance between entertaining and preaching or you lose people. I'm not going to believe superman can help stem climate change but I would believe that he can help with greed and corruption, which again, is when Lex comes in.

how many fukkin tsunami's and major hurricanes have we had in the last several years?

what other superhero could protect us from that?

this doesn't mean that we can't see superman up against alien invasions and more imaginative type spectacle but at the end of the day there is more to superman than just fighting big strong bad guys. and i believe you need to get that aspect of the character right before you start worrying about who (or what) the villain is.

 

[MartyMcFly]

how many fukkin tsunami's and major hurricanes have we had in the last several years?

what other superhero could protect us from that?

this doesn't mean that we can't see superman up against alien invasions and more imaginative type spectacle but at the end of the day there is more to superman than just fighting big strong bad guys. and you need to get that aspect of the character right before you start worrying about who the villain is.

Meh that doesn't interest me breh. Maybe that's me, but I'm not trying to see Superman save me from acts of God (I'm religious so that may or may not jibe with your views). I prefer to see him save me from bad people, bad men or women with bad intentions. Superman stopping floods and spinning the world back on its axis to reverse time doesn't do a damn thing for me. I like to see him tested because he is the best of us, and I like to see that dichotomy of him being against guys like Lex who have no love for humanity despite how much they think they do. Him stopping a hurricane makes me yawn breh

 

[Kill Dat Noize]

Meh that doesn't interest me breh. Maybe that's me, but I'm not trying to see Superman save me from acts of God (I'm religious so that may or may not jibe with your views). I prefer to see him save me from bad people, bad men or women with bad intentions. Superman stopping floods and spinning the world back on its axis to reverse time doesn't do a damn thing for me. I like to see him tested because he is the best of us, and I like to see that dichotomy of him being against guys like Lex who have no love for humanity despite how much they think they do. Him stopping a hurricane makes me yawn breh

lol you make it sound as if i'm suggesting that a hurricane or tornado be the main threat in the movie.

of course i don't wanna see a superman movie where the climactic action finale involves him saving a kitten from a tree.

these are just everyday things for superman. saving a small country from certain disaster is just tuesday for him. that is what superman is about. these things needs to be shown.