The Dark Knight: Nolan and Bale’s Batman 2

[Connavar]

Jackie type gimmicky moves? have you ever read Batman?


I also thought it was cool he was a menace to them when he fought scaring them and stuff. That was the only thing they got it right actionwise.

Whatever you think of Jackie Chan and co Batman uses Martial arts to kick villains ass. He doesnt waste time by taking them to the roof with him one and one.

He would clear the room in a min with simple but effective moves, no gimmick stuffs here.

[Rawled Demha]

to put it bluntly, jc earlies were about the fights and stunts, his agility basically...his laters were about the comedies and close shaves, his agility in old age

bw was always about using everything we can use as humen to fight crime - technology, body and mind. batman rocks!!

[Famfrit]

So far, I'm not entirely convinced by the idea for this film. It's been done before almost 20 years ago spectacularly by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.
Apparently, it's supposed to be a kinda 'Batman Begins 2' premise, but if thats the case, why couldn't it have been set slightly earlier than the first Batman film?
And I firmly believe that Heath Ledger as the Joker, is one of the worst casting decisions since Timothy Olyphant in the Hitman movie. But then again, that movie is just backwards anyway.

Bring back Tim Burton!

[Connavar]

Chris Nolan is good with movies like Prestige but he doesnt know how to make Batman and his world come alive...

[ScottSF]

Originally Posted by Famfrit

Apparently, it's supposed to be a kinda 'Batman Begins 2' premise, but if thats the case, why couldn't it have been set slightly earlier than the first Batman film?

Bring back Tim Burton!

Because Batman Begins has no relation to the Burton Batman movies just like 1989 Batman had no relation to the 1966 Batman movie (or the 1943 movie). Burton changed the story and made Joker the killer of Bruce's Parents but in Batman Begins they went back to the original source and made Joe Chill the killer, just a common thug. I can understand the sentimental attachment to the 1989 Batman. I really loved Burton's sets and I think the Joker was done well but I was never sold on Keaton as Batman; he just wasn't scary.

[Gav]

Bring back Tim Burton!

Burton is on record, and seemingly proud, that he never read (and so wasn't familiar with) the Batman source material (comics).

He was more interested in making a Burton movie than a Batman movie...

[Crazihors]

Tim Burton's Gotham was too pantomime for me - I refer Nolan's attempt at making it like a real city, and I also like his attention to detail. The flashbacks and such did confuse me a bit, but overall the film was realistically dark, and did give insight into why Bruce Wayne might become Batman. And it was filmed in England, Whoop!

[Shrek Baby]

Every incarnation of Batman from Adam West to Michael Keaton to George Clooney to Christian Bale has refelcted more on the time the film was made. West's Batman reflected the nature of most 60's action programmes - camp, overacted and pantomime-like. All in all, a really enjoyable romp.

When Burton took the helm of the Batman franchise in the late 1980s, viewers were wanting more realistic storytelling in films. With a story like Batman (as unrealistic as it gets) it was necessary to cast someone like Michael Keaton to almost underplay the role of Bruce and his Batman slightly scary (to other characters but not the audience). Jack Nicholson's Joker meanwhile retained enough of the comic book style of the 60's Joker but with a touch of mental instability as opposed to downright insanity. Val Kilmer continued with Keaton's style of playing the title role and Jim Carey/Tommy Lee Jones pushed the overacting comic villains and almost took away any sense of danger about the roles of Riddler and Two Face respectively.

Then Joel Schumacher came along...
I have absolute respect for Schumacher as a film maker (The Number 23, Phantom of the Opera, Phonebooth). He knows how to make a good film. Batman forever was well made in terms of casting and effects and so on, but so much of the essence of what made Batman fantastic had been lost. However, it still reflected on the time it was made - in the mid 90s there were lots of big names flying around and the use of special effects was growing exponentially. Batman Forever had big names, bigger effects and even more over the top acting but it was clear that the franchise had lost it's way.

Nolan's revisioning of the franchise allowed him to get back to the bare bones of what Batman should be and respond to what audiences wanted in films (and still do). He made it darker, edgier, scarier and much more compelling. Audiences want more of this and Nolan delivered.

[ScottSF]

YouTube - Batman 1943 Serial Trailer

this is the 1st time I saw any of the 1943 Batman. Zeus Bless youtube. How about that ray gun?

[Harleyquin]

sooo - and I'm going out on a limb here...

you've never read "Batman: year one" ???

Nolans story was heavily sourced from Millers graphic novel, the Ras Al goul story was out of an earlier account - its all about going back to basics.

As Shrek Baby pointed out Batman Movies have often reflected the times... the comic books have been little different.

Anybody here know that in the first incarnation of Batman he happily killed criminals? theres more than one he breaks the kneck of - he even killed the joker on his first outing He even carried a GUN at one point - something the "modern" batman wouldnt even contemplate.. so I agree one has to context the films but the context here is heavily Frank Miller.

Ok I'm rare as I though Jack Nicholson was the absolute worst person on planet earth to play the joker - hell they modified the script to accomodate jack, and a lot of the sceans they changed too - remember the last scean where batman's flying in all guns blazing (yet still amazingly missing)??? that scean the Joker was supposed to be jumping around a lot like a pin ball - but nope they pandered to nicholson and in the final version he just stood there.

Annnnnyyyyyyway...

The joker is best summed up in "the killing Joke" - I expect the dark night will have this as a strong influence to it, and perhaps parts of the dark knight returns and Arkam Asylum.

The Joker is possibly the most ill understood character in the batman univers but the most well known. Everybody thinks of him as a clown who then does evil things... the problem is the Joker IS a clown full stop - the litteral truth is everything he does he Thinks is funny - wether it be a pie in the face or a pie in the case with an acid filling - to him its the same but the "joke" element dictates if its lethal or not - also the Joker is the intellectual equal to the batman, just as smart in every way.

so heath ledger as the joker who can play it very dark, and comic will be a 100% better than jack who never got the character imo

[ravenus]

Uhhh..if you really read The Killing Joke, the Joker doesn't do what he does to Comm. Gordon because he thinks it's funny. He is openly sadistic and wants the man to completely lose his sanity, and make the world thereby realize that anybody under a defined set of circumstances could have become the Joker. That's not a funnyman cracking a macabre joke, that's white hot rage.

[ScottSF]

Originally Posted by Harleyquin

sooo - and I'm going out on a limb here...

you've never read "Batman: year one" ???

Nolans story was heavily sourced from Millers graphic novel, the Ras Al goul story was out of an earlier account - its all about going back to basics.

I'm a big fan of Miller's interpretation of batman and I wished they took even more from Year one. My favorite scene in the Year One comics was when batman crashed that socialite party to tell all the corupt rich folks that the party was over with the light from the barbique casting an erie glow in his face. Also I wished batman begins went with a strong Sgt. Gordon rather than the whimpy but good hearted cop they made Oldman play.

I also seem to remember in the old comic batman shot joe chill with a gun point blank.

[Harleyquin]

Originally Posted by ravenus

the Joker doesn't do what he does to Comm. Gordon because he thinks it's funny. He is openly sadistic and wants the man to completely lose his sanity, and make the world thereby realize that anybody under a defined set of circumstances could have become the Joker. That's not a funnyman cracking a macabre joke, that's white hot rage.

And here in lies the the most subtle part in the story of the joker.

We know he's a failing comic, trying hard to cope when his pregnat wife buys a one way ticket on the heaven express. Is day get worse progressively ending up with el acid bath and his assertion that "anybody" given the correct circumstances will go insane.

Now as you pointed out what he does to the comish isnt funny - its sadistic.. however the REAL point is not that what he's doing is not only not out of a joke as is usual with him... but its deliberate and calculated.

The joker is insane yet demonstrates a plan that is compleatly and totaly sane, with a rationality hard to ignore... So boys and girls the thing that the killing joke asks us is not about his sadistic insane jokes - but rather if the joker is actually insane or not - all he's doing is "acting" insane to excuse his actions in a "white hot rage" and revenge against the whole world. This is the same but mirrored mental state that batman displays during his crusade which again shows the joker as being the mirror of the bat.

[idrawgirls]

I can't wait to see it come out.

[ScottSF]

I just realized that when this comes out it will be almost 20 years since Burton's re-imagining of Batman. There's a Batman and Joker movie about every 20 years. Batman: the movie 1966, Batman 1989, Dark Knight 2008. Too bad the 1943 Batman movie didn't have the joker.