NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a good idea, what if they had Felix Faust resurrect Two-Face five years after Dark Knight. But Two-Face kills Faust in a psycopathic frenzy. And now Two-Face is ten times worse than he is in the movie. Two-Face actually starts his own gang and wants revenge against the Joker. The Joker breaks out of jail and gets with his old gang. And then the Joker and Two-Face have a gang war over Gotham City. In the movie, Two-Face and the Joker have to take over strategic parts of the city. One part is the Gotham Circus where the Flying Graysons perform and is sponsered by Bruce Wayne who is in the audience. Then Bruce Wayne and the crowd witness the murder of Dick Grayson's and after the uproar, Wayne takes in the boy. Now it is up to Batman to avenge Dick Grayson's parents because now he sees the boy as his son and he understands the pain of losing 2 parents. He must also save the city from being destroyed by the war between Joker and Two Face. Oh and Dick does not become Robin yet.Share your ideas on what you would like for the next movie.

I'd bury the franchise.

It's been milked for all it's worth. Time to lay it to rest. Now it's just getting to the point where it's ridiculous. It's further proof of Hollywood's inability to be creative.

I have a good idea, what if they had Felix Faust resurrect Two-Face five years after Dark Knight. But Two-Face kills Faust in a psycopathic frenzy. And now Two-Face is ten times worse than he is in the movie. Two-Face actually starts his own gang and wants revenge against the Joker. The Joker breaks out of jail and gets with his old gang. And then the Joker and Two-Face have a gang war over Gotham City. In the movie, Two-Face and the Joker have to take over strategic parts of the city. One part is the Gotham Circus where the Flying Graysons perform and is sponsered by Bruce Wayne who is in the audience. Then Bruce Wayne and the crowd witness the murder of Dick Grayson's and after the uproar, Wayne takes in the boy. Now it is up to Batman to avenge Dick Grayson's parents because now he sees the boy as his son and he understands the pain of losing 2 parents. He must also save the city from being destroyed by the war between Joker and Two Face. Oh and Dick does not become Robin yet.Share your ideas on what you would like for the next movie.

I think each and every one of my brain cells just vomitted.

I say: Bring in the penguin. No Joker, because Heath Ledger is dead, and there's no fricken way to beat his joker.

Anything with Muppets. Or clowns. Or clowns and Muppets.

No. Leave the joker lay. Anything else would insult that the tour de force that is Heather Ledger as the Joker.

hmmm...

instead of Keeping with the usual villians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_villains)...

They could use Clayface (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayface), Anarky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarky), League of Assassins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Assassins)... a whole plethora of villians not used could make for an appearance in the next Batman Movie.

Batman could get caught in someone's hair

No Heath Ledger = no Joker I'd want to see.

I was that impressed.

No. Leave the joker lay. Anything else would insult that the tour de force that is Heather Ledger as the Joker.

It is a rare ting indeed: we agree.

Bring Heath Ledger back from the dead.

I have a good idea, what if they had Felix Faust resurrect Two-Face five years after Dark Knight. But Two-Face kills Faust in a psycopathic frenzy. And now Two-Face is ten times worse than he is in the movie. Two-Face actually starts his own gang and wants revenge against the Joker. The Joker breaks out of jail and gets with his old gang. And then the Joker and Two-Face have a gang war over Gotham City. In the movie, Two-Face and the Joker have to take over strategic parts of the city. One part is the Gotham Circus where the Flying Graysons perform and is sponsered by Bruce Wayne who is in the audience. Then Bruce Wayne and the crowd witness the murder of Dick Grayson's and after the uproar, Wayne takes in the boy. Now it is up to Batman to avenge Dick Grayson's parents because now he sees the boy as his son and he understands the pain of losing 2 parents. He must also save the city from being destroyed by the war between Joker and Two Face. Oh and Dick does not become Robin yet.Share your ideas on what you would like for the next movie.

No....just no.

I'd like to see Jim Carrey come back as The Riddler in the next one.

It is a rare ting indeed: we agree.

I think the planets are alligned or something....

Nipple suit!
I'd bury the franchise.

It's been milked for all it's worth. Time to lay it to rest. Now it's just getting to the point where it's ridiculous. It's further proof of Hollywood's inability to be creative.
Your standard of creativity is artificially narrowed. Novelty is a 20th century fascination. Art is in the execution, not in the 'purity' of the source.

Bring Back Vicky Vale with a theme song by the Jonas Brothers!!!

Oh, wait, that was the crack speaking, nvrmnd.


:p

Your standard of creativity is artificially narrowed. Novelty is a 20th century fascination. Art is in the execution, not in the 'purity' of the source.

Well said, hear, hear!

i Have A Good Idea, What If They Had Felix Faust Resurrect Two-face Five Years After Dark Knight. But Two-face Kills Faust In A Psycopathic Frenzy. And Now Two-face Is Ten Times Worse Than He Is In The Movie. Two-face Actually Starts His Own Gang And Wants Revenge Against The Joker. The Joker Breaks Out Of Jail And Gets With His Old Gang. And Then The Joker And Two-face Have A Gang War Over Gotham City. In The Movie, Two-face And The Joker Have To Take Over Strategic Parts Of The City. One Part Is The Gotham Circus Where The Flying Graysons Perform And Is Sponsered By Bruce Wayne Who Is In The Audience. Then Bruce Wayne And The Crowd Witness The Murder Of Dick Grayson's And After The Uproar, Wayne Takes In The Boy. Now It Is Up To Batman To Avenge Dick Grayson's Parents Because Now He Sees The Boy As His Son And He Understands The Pain Of Losing 2 Parents. He Must Also Save The City From Being Destroyed By The War Between Joker And Two Face. Oh And Dick Does Not Become Robin Yet.share Your Ideas On What You Would Like For The Next Movie.Gross.

Ra's al Ghul could always come back...he does in the comics all the time. There can't be another Joker, of course, and Two-Face back from the dead is just dumb.

I could see room for Dick Grayson to make an appearance. Harley Quinn, Ivy, KGBeast, and even Catwoman might be suitable villains, but I'm not sure anything can beat Dark Knight.

I say: Bring in the penguin. No Joker, because Heath Ledger is dead, and there's no fricken way to beat his joker.One doesn't have to "beat" his Joker to do it well. Personally, I wouldn't say that Ledger's Joker "beat" Nicholson's, per se, if only because Ledger's Joker would have been completely out of place in Tim Burton's film.

I say, it depends on whether this director and writing team have a story to tell that still needs the Joker. They've done an amazing job so far, and if there's a trajectory to this thing I want to see it through.

If no such story needs to be told, let it rest... for a while, at least. But the Joker is a compelling character, and the fact that one actor has done an incredible job with him does not mean we should neglect the role forever. In another generation, at least, we can see another Joker. If we need him sooner, so be it.

You can just bet that every hotshot actor in Hollywood will jump at the chance for a crack at him. It's a challenge now, and I for one would be mightily happy to see what the best minds out there can do with that challenge.

I loved Ledger's Joker. But I'll bet any money that if Ledger were alive and he turned down a second film in the role (if, say, the studio wouldn't offer enough money), we wouldn't be having this conversation. The role has been done, and done again. Few would argue, if Ledger were alive, that it should "never" be played by another actor down the road.

There is clearly some sort of collective guilt surrounding the idea right now. But we'll get over it. It's irrational, and it shouldn't hold back new opportunities at exploring the artistry of which the franchise is capable.

Personally, I'd like to see Talia al Ghul take up Catwoman's overplayed, ruined (as far as film goes) position as Batman's lover/enemy/anti-heroine.

Since the trend seems to be to include two villains, and it seems these films need at least two to fill them up, I'd be down for a well-played Riddler. NOT Jim Carrey, as someone suggested.

Personally, I'd like to see Talia al Ghul take up Catwoman's overplayed, ruined (as far as film goes) position as Batman's lover/enemy/anti-heroine.

Since the trend seems to be to include two villains, and it seems these films need at least two to fill them up, I'd be down for a well-played Riddler. NOT Jim Carrey, as someone suggested.

The Idea of Talia trying to resurrect her father is interesting. perhaps enlisting Clayface and perhaps Lady Shiva and conducting things behind the scenes.

The Idea of Talia trying to resurrect her father is interesting. perhaps enlisting Clayface and perhaps Lady Shiva and conducting things behind the scenes.Actually, I like the fact that this new series of films has evaded the supernatural end of things... a resurrection does not appeal to me.

I like the notion they've hinted at, that R'as is "immortal" in the sense that his mantle is taken up by a series of successors, one after the other. I could imagine an interesting storyline in which Talia is rejected as successor or otherwise alienates herself from the League: she might come to Gotham in an attempt to prove herself against Batman, who defeated the League and (apparently) killed Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins.

One could equally well imagine the League creating/provoking the Riddler, setting up a nice tension for Talia: Batman as adversary and the Riddler as competition.

Actually, I like the fact that this new series of films has evaded the supernatural end of things... a resurrection does not appeal to me.

I like the notion they've hinted at, that R'as is "immortal" in the sense that his mantle is taken up by a series of successors, one after the other. I could imagine an interesting storyline in which Talia is rejected as successor or otherwise alienates herself from the League: she might come to Gotham in an attempt to prove herself against Batman, who defeated the League and (apparently) killed Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins.

One could equally well imagine the League creating/provoking the Riddler, setting up a nice tension for Talia: Batman as adversary and the Riddler as competition.
True, but you never see Ra die. we assume he's dead, but since he trained a bunch of ninjas...

so Ras could be injured/crippled with Talia doing the running for him and he could be 'rebuilding' his society.

EDIT: or use Clayface to 'resurrect' Ra's as a figurehead that Talia controls.

No....just no.

I'd like to see Jim Carrey come back as The Riddler in the next one.

I've lost respect for you over this comment.

:p

Honestly, no clue. Depends greatly on the story, and I'm still gobsmacked by the last story to really think out which of Batman's rogues gallery would best suit the next one. I will say, though, that Nolan has already said there will be no Robin, no Catwoman, and no Penguin in his films, and that's good enough for me. Selina Kyle may be Batman's one true love, but she's also has a two-bit origin story that does nothing to talk about the popular angst about terror and the flirting with abuse of power that TDK captured so effectively. She's a great cutpurse, but she's just an ordinary woman looking for a fun time by playing the crime game. Same thing with the Penguin: the man's a stand-in for Industrial Age Blue-Blood foppery. If George H. W. Bush were in charge in 3 years and the economy were our biggest concern, I could see the possibility. But he won't, and it won't. As such, a Penguin story doesn't resonate.

Riddler is just a pale imitation of Joker.

Bring back Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mr. Freeze. That was such a good movie.


:rolleyes:

Bring back Bane, Poison Ivy, and Mr. Freeze. That was such a good movie.


:rolleyes:

....

Go die. Please. That movie hurt my brain.

Make it a musical.

Make it a musical.

what's that phrase...

that's right...

OH HELL NO!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exhNT2_bHs8)

I'd bury the franchise.

It's been milked for all it's worth. Time to lay it to rest. Now it's just getting to the point where it's ridiculous. It's further proof of Hollywood's inability to be creative.

I agree, but for another reason:

I want them to end it now, while they're on top. They can't top this, and an attempted sequel will only suck.

No Robin. It doesn't suit the style of the new movies.

As for future villans, I've seen rumors that Johnny Depp and Phillip Seymour Hoffman will be cast, as, I think, the Riddler and Penguin.

How about Bane? From what my roommate's told me, he was a bad-ass in the comics. Nothing like the afterthought that appeared in Batman and Robin.

I was reporting what I heard about the actual plans for the sequel, not my preferences. I've never read the comics, so my only previous exposure to Batman was the Tim Burton film with Jack Nicholson as the Joker.

As for the Joker in the next film, I think its to soon after Ledger's excellent performance, and its hard to imagine anything that wouldn't pale in comparison. Also, they explored the character fairly well. I'm not sure bringing him back would do more than retread old ground.

I want them to end it now, while they're on top. They can't top this, and an attempted sequel will only suck.Totally non sequitur.

Even if they can't top this--and there's a fair argument to be made to that effect--there's no particular reason to assume that a sequel will actually be a bad thing.

Couldn't top Empire Strikes Back, either. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have made Return of the Jedi.

Totally non sequitur.Not at all, actually:
They can't top this.
A sequel will suck.


Even if they can't top this--and there's a fair argument to be made to that effect--there's no particular reason to assume that a sequel will actually be a bad thing.
Sure there is. The history of Hollywood movies strongly indicate that any sequel to a fantastic movie is a sucky, uninspired, horrible piece of garbage. Some exceptions, sure, but that's the rule of thumb.


Couldn't top Empire Strikes Back, either. Doesn't mean they shouldn't have made Return of the Jedi.
No comparison, and not only because Jedi actually did top Empire: The Return of the Jedi was another chapter on direct continuation of the story in the Empire Strikes Back. Return of the Jedi was not an independent stand-alone movie.

Not at all, actually:
They can't top this.
A sequel will suck.A fallacy is still a fallacy, no matter how many times you repeat it.

No comparison, and not only because Jedi actually did top EmpireYou just lost whatever slim specter of credibility you had.

;)

The Return of the Jedi was another chapter on direct continuation of the story in the Empire Strikes Back. Return of the Jedi was not an independent stand-alone movie.Neither was The Dark Knight. It not only picked up literally on the last moments of Batman Begins, it also continued personal stories (Bruce Wayne / Rachel Dawes) from the first film as well as (perhaps more importantly) the thematic elements (urban decay, the power of symbols) raised at the outset of this new story.

What's to prevent them from continuing the saga in the same vein? One senses a story arc here that is far from completed.

The Penguin, as the stereotypical British gentlemen/madman supervillain.

Make one more movie, to make it a trilogy. Then end it there, and let it rest in piece. No new Joker at all. Not for this sereies. (I don't know what to call it.) As for villian, um, I have no idea, the Penguin?

Batman goes to Afghanistan and catches Bin Laden, OORAH!

Batman goes to Afghanistan and catches Bin Laden, OORAH!

John McCain can play Batman, and actually go to the gates of Hell to catch Bin Laden.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=178207

They should do Bane and some interpretation of the Knightfall storyline.

The following does not accurately represent my real thoughts:
3 ideas:
Adam West as Batman
Nude scene with Michael Caine (Alfred)
(Insert least favorite actor here) as lead villain, in hopes that they pull a Heath Ledger.(and die)

Hoffman is very Penguinesque.

I think Robert Picardo should be the Riddler or the Clock King.

really, I was so flabbergasted by the excellence of this movie, that I can't see them making one anywhere near as good as this one. I would be disappointed in them if they did go on with it, there are no villains that can follow Ledger's joker and make as great a movie, especially with the amount of realism that is attempted in these movies. There may be a chance at the Riddler, Bane, Talia, and possibly Poison Ivy, though her motives may be difficult to work into the current story arc. The Riddler as he was portrayed in Jim Carey's performance would be too close to a joker-like figure, though it would make for an interesting story. They could possibly forgo some of the classic villains, and make a story in which the police put out a reward for Batman, and enlist the aid of bounty hunters, mobsters, etc. This might be a chance to bring in some of the smaller villains, like the mad hatter and such, that would not be able to make an entire movie, and the above plot would require something extra to put it anywhere close to the bar set by the previous 2 movies.

A fallacy is still a fallacy, no matter how many times you repeat it.
You should learn what "non sequitur" really means. Those two lines represents two different arguments, and are not connected.

They can't top this, so I don't think they should try.

Sequels usually sucks, so I don't think they should try to make one.

You just lost whatever slim specter of credibility you had.

;)
Yes!

*Fistpumps*

Neither was The Dark Knight. It not only picked up literally on the last moments of Batman Begins, it also continued personal stories (Bruce Wayne / Rachel Dawes) from the first film as well as (perhaps more importantly) the thematic elements (urban decay, the power of symbols) raised at the outset of this new story.
I disagree. It wasn't a direct continuation of a story, it was a new story, and it is a stand-alone story. Just like these kinds of Superhero movies usually are. You don't have to know anything about the previous movie to follow this story completely. Honestly, when it comes to Rachel Dawes, I didn't even connect her to the previous movie, due to the actress change the character has undergone.

What's to prevent them from continuing the saga in the same vein? One senses a story arc here that is far from completed.
On the contrary, I sense that they've gotten all they can out of this franchise, and that it's come to a natural end.

Of course, should they go ahead they might surprise me in a positive manner. But I don't remember the last time any movie maker did that, after I'd gotten this feeling about a series.

I think that now is perfect for a Superman/Batman crossover movie. With Rachel dead and the public hating him, Batman is going to lose his moral centre and forget that he's supposed to be a hero. Who better to remind him than an old-fashioned good guy like Superman. Superman, upon discovering that he has a son, is going to throw himself into his civillian life and let his superhero game slip. Who better to remind him that he has responsibilities than an obsessive nut like Batman?
As for villains... Penguin and Metallo.

Ick! Superman! :gundge:

Ick! Superman! :gundge:
Oh, great. Another person who hates any hero who doesn't have crippling emotional pain, is actually liked by the public, and talks in a normal voice. It's people like you that ruined the entire decade of the '90s. It's only recently that heroes who aren't anti-heroes havebecome popular again.

As for future villans, I've seen rumors that Johnny Depp and Phillip Seymour Hoffman will be cast, as, I think, the Riddler and Penguin.
Depp, hey? That could actually be quite good. If the writing can be up to scratch, I guess.

It was once suggested that Anarky was the Joker's son, which would also be a direction to go into. Either way though, you end up with something of a Joker-clone as the bad guy with much the same intentions and motivations.

I don't want a Joker redo in any form. Its probably just retreading old ground, and who can match what Ledger did? For this decade at least, he is the Joker.

Oh, great. Another person who hates any hero who doesn't have crippling emotional pain, is actually liked by the public, and talks in a normal voice. It's people like you that ruined the entire decade of the '90s. It's only recently that heroes who aren't anti-heroes havebecome popular again.

Well, characters often benefit from having inner conflict and flaws. But it can be taken way to far.

Well, characters often benefit from having inner conflict and flaws. But it can be taken way to far.
Oh, I agree. And Superman does have flaws. His gigantic messiah complex, his obsession with Lois, his inflexibility and inability to compromise his morals. I just get sick of all these people who see a superhero wearing bright colours and acting like a good guy and immediately dismissing the character. I know that wasn't necessarily what Graveln did, but I like razzing people.

Oh, great. Another person who hates any hero who doesn't have crippling emotional pain, is actually liked by the public, and talks in a normal voice. It's people like you that ruined the entire decade of the '90s. It's only recently that heroes who aren't anti-heroes havebecome popular again.

Too bad you're wrong, though :wink:

Superman is a boring Superhero because he's unbeatable. Bring on superheroes without emotional pain and whom the public love - but please, give them some challenges and hurdles to overcome, eh? Some difficulties?

I know, everybody and their dog has Kryptonite in the Supeman world, but *Yawn* - that's part of what makes it boring and predictable.

The new Superman movie was a disaster of epic proportions. Completely uninteresting.

Too bad you're wrong, though :wink:

Superman is a boring Superhero because he's unbeatable. Bring on superheroes without emotional pain and whom the public love - but please, give them some challenges and hurdles to overcome, eh? Some difficulties?

I know, everybody and their dog has Kryptonite in the Supeman world, but *Yawn* - that's part of what makes it boring and predictable.

The new Superman movie was a disaster of epic proportions. Completely uninteresting.
I've heard people say that, and on some level I agree with them. But that's why they gave him villains who could actually pose a threat to him: Brainiac, Bizarro, General Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday, Metallo, Parasite.
I don't understand why so many people didn't like Superman Returns. Sure it got a little dull in some parts, but come on! Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor!

I've heard people say that, and on some level I agree with them. But that's why they gave him villains who could actually pose a threat to him: Brainiac, Bizarro, General Zod, Darkseid, Doomsday, Metallo, Parasite.
Can they? Pose a threat to him, I mean? If it gets a little too hot and heavy for him, he can just spin the earth backwards and turn back time, for fuck's sake! He can beat them up when they're toddlers and have them not be as naughty. :rolleyes:

Except Zod. But he's just a reflection of Superman, so that's like saying that the only real challenge to Superman would be a Superman. And that's just pointless.

Nah, I just find the whole Superman thing dull and unimaginative. Was fun when I was 8 years old, mind, but I grew out of it.

I don't understand why so many people didn't like Superman Returns. Sure it got a little dull in some parts, but come on! Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor!
Kevin Spacey was the only highlight in an ocean of dull boredom. And the insertion of the Son of Superman - dude, talk about adding the pointless crippling emotional pain!

You should learn what "non sequitur" really means. Those two lines represents two different arguments, and are not connected.Ah, then I misread your intention. It appeared that you were offering a reason why you thought it is inevitable that the next film will suck, instead of simply an irrational faith.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I think fallacious reasoning is at least more respectable, in its attempt at sensibility, than a refusal of rational standards altogether.

Sequels usually sucks, so I don't think they should try to make one.Let's ask ourselves: why have sequels so frequently sucked?

A) Directors, producers, studios want to jump on the cash cow of a popular film while it is still popular. They rush a sequel to hold their audience.
B) Writers and directors, uncertain of their own formula for success in a film, parody their own efforts by repeating or rehashing popular elements of the first: a catch-phrase, for instance. It falls flat with overuse.
C) Writers and directors, pressed to make a sequel for the sake of a sequel, fail to produce a story that deserves to be told for the sake of the story.
D) Grumpy fans of the original invariably pan the sequel as, in one way or another, a betrayal of what THEY loved in the original--no matter what the writers/directors/actors/etc do, SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG.

As to A: There is no reason to rush a Batman sequel, as Batman's popularity has proven to be enduring across generations, let alone the few years it should take to produce a GOOD film.
As to B: I think the "formula" for success here is clear, and I think the writers/directors have shown tremendous integrity in sticking to it even against what must be awesome pressure to up-the-ante with supernatural villains calling for incredible special effects: keep it real, keep it gritty, keep it believable.
As to C: Again, I'm willing to believe that if they stick with this writing/directing team, we'll see a film that THEY care about for its artistic merits. Even if it's a miss in some ways, it's hard for me to believe that it will suck so bad it isn't worth seeing, or it betrays the legacy of the first two films.
As to D: Some fans need to grow the hell up.

But perhaps the best argument? ON YOUR ARGUMENT, The Dark Knight would never have been made. IT IS A SEQUEL.

On the contrary, I sense that they've gotten all they can out of this franchise, and that it's come to a natural end.Maybe it has. And from what I've heard, the writers/directors are not just JUMPING on the idea of a new film. As I've said, I've come to trust them for artistic integrity: if they can't find an idea worth making, then I WOULD be highly suspicious of a studio move to hire a new team to make a "sequel" to this film.

But they really seem to care about the art, and that's enough for me to trust them. If they think they have it in them, I want to see what it is they have.

But I don't remember the last time any movie maker did that, after I'd gotten this feeling about a series.Ah, you're psychic!!

Well, why didn't you just say so?

Ah, then I misread your intention. It appeared that you were offering a reason why you thought it is inevitable that the next film will suck, instead of simply an irrational faith.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I think fallacious reasoning is at least more respectable, in its attempt at sensibility, than a refusal of rational standards altogether.
Pfft! When it comes to movies I reserve the right not to be sensible. It's like all art: I know what I like, and I don't have to justify my taste. :p



But perhaps the best argument? ON YOUR ARGUMENT, The Dark Knight would never have been made. IT IS A SEQUEL.
Yup. And one exception to the rule.


Ah, you're psychic!!

Well, why didn't you just say so?
The governments always want to do these experiments on me when I tell people. That, or go on secret death-defying missions, and that just steals away too much time from my summer vacations. Why, the stories I could tell...