PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Eckhart wants Nolan to revive Two-Face



lt_skittles
17th Sep 2009, 21:31
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/eckhart-wants-two-face-for-next-batman-movie_1116351


AARON ECKHART has launched a new bid to convince director CHRISTOPHER NOLAN to revive Batman comic book character TWO-FACE for the sequel to THE DARK KNIGHT.
The actor, who portrayed Harvey Dent and his alter ego Two-Face, saw his character appear to be killed off in the 2008 blockbuster, and assumed he would not be a part of any future movie installments.
But Eckhart is now appealing to Nolan to consider bringing Two-Face back from the dead - mimicking a popular technique used on dramatic TV soap operas.
He says, "I think I've talked myself out of the job. I thought I'd died. But you know, America's grown up on soap operas and reinventing people so why doesn't Chris take that into consideration (when he's writing the script)?"
The star admits he would jump at the chance to join the cast of Nolan's third Batman outing, but would understand if the director decided not to pick up where The Dark Knight left off, out of respect to the late Heath Ledger, who played The Joker.
Eckhart adds, "If Chris asked me back, I would love to. Heath really was meant to come back as The Joker (for the next movie) as we all would want him to do so maybe this will be the way it is and be its own little thing."
Ledger died from an accidental drug overdose in January 2008.

I didn't think Two-Face died, but Harvey Dent did at the end, everybody would want to recognize Harvey Dent, and not Two-Face.

Batman The Trailer Hunter
17th Sep 2009, 22:09
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/eckhart-wants-two-face-for-next-batman-movie_1116351


I didn't think Two-Face died, but Harvey Dent did at the end, everybody would want to recognize Harvey Dent, and not Two-Face.

Heath isnt dead!

Revenant36
17th Sep 2009, 22:55
Emma Thomas (producer of Batman Begins/The Dark Knight) said something a few months ago about Harvey having a closed casket funeral, we never saw the body, they're toying with the idea of him being in some underground cell in Arkham. The whole thing about keeping prisoners who don't officially exist (think Victor Drazen for anyone who's seen the first season of 24). I can't post a link coz it was months ago I saw it and can't remember where. I'd love it if Two-Face came back. Eckhart's portrayal (and Nolan's vision) of him was stellar...

lt_skittles
17th Sep 2009, 23:10
Emma Thomas (producer of Batman Begins/The Dark Knight) said something a few months ago about Harvey having a closed casket funeral, we never saw the body, they're toying with the idea of him being in some underground cell in Arkham. The whole thing about keeping prisoners who don't officially exist (think Victor Drazen for anyone who's seen the first season of 24). I can't post a link coz it was months ago I saw it and can't remember where. I'd love it if Two-Face came back. Eckhart's portrayal (and Nolan's vision) of him was stellar...

I understand what you're saying. We didn't see his body, and it was a memorial for Harvey Dent, because they didn't want to make it look like Harvey was the bad guy, so the Joker didn't win.

Old_BenKenobi
18th Sep 2009, 03:37
I think Harvey surviving the fall is pretty unlikely, since he most likely landed on his neck. I'd love to see Eckhart come back, but at the same time I think Harvey's story is over. There was no "End of Harvey/Beginning of Two-Face" thing in the movie. It's not a Two-Face origin story. It's about Harvey's rise and fall, a fall so hard it resulted in his death.

As for the closed casket, it's pretty common for a writer to slip in things that could be used in future stories, and they obviously wanted the option to bring him back, but it would cripple the dramatic impact of TDK's ending a bit, be pretty illogical for a movie where realism is the focus, and I don't think they'd give an open casket with his face like that.

Drazar
18th Sep 2009, 05:32
I never liked the idea of Harvey being in some secret cell, i mean talk about a sudden moral change for Batman and Jim Gordon. >_>

lukeob94
18th Sep 2009, 05:37
I think Harvey surviving the fall is pretty unlikely, since he most likely landed on his neck. I'd love to see Eckhart come back, but at the same time I think Harvey's story is over. There was no "End of Harvey/Beginning of Two-Face" thing in the movie. It's not a Two-Face origin story. It's about Harvey's rise and fall, a fall so hard it resulted in his death.

As for the closed casket, it's pretty common for a writer to slip in things that could be used in future stories, and they obviously wanted the option to bring him back, but it would cripple the dramatic impact of TDK's ending a bit, be pretty illogical for a movie where realism is the focus, and I don't think they'd give an open casket with his face like that.

i always thought maybe the quote in the movie "a fall from this high won't kill me" was kinda used a clue to harvey dent.I think it'd be awesome to have two face and ivy in the next movie like how they were in dark victory.

Old_BenKenobi
18th Sep 2009, 10:41
i always thought maybe the quote in the movie "a fall from this high won't kill me" was kinda used a clue to harvey dent.I think it'd be awesome to have two face and ivy in the next movie like how they were in dark victory.

Well that just goes back to what I said about slipping in hints. If they do bring Harvey back they could cite the Maroni line and closed casket as foreshadowing. Helps ease it in.

I still call bunk, since Maroni was dropped on his legs and Harvey was pushed off and most likely landed on his head or neck.

Revenant36
19th Sep 2009, 01:29
I totally agree that it's not likely for him to come back. I was just saying I'd love it if he did. Besides, when Eckhart asked Nolan shortly after TDK's release, he didn't even get to finish the question before Nolan interrupted with "No, you're dead".

Oh, and check this (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/SbasR13FydI/AAAAAAAAiPQ/efCX-eZjfc8/s400/stars_who_resemble_each_other_25.jpg) out. This guy's currently working with Nolan on "Inception". Now, I'm not saying they're doubles or anything, but close enough. And a simple line about how spending time in Arkham would explain the personality differences (as evidenced by the difference in actor's performances). As long as Levitt took his cues from Ledger's performance without trying to directly emulate it we could be onto a winning replacement for Ledger's Joker in Batman 3.

And no, it's not disrespectful to Heath to have someone else take over the role. It seems pretty likely to me that the Joker was meant to have a role in any sequel. Just look at when Richard Harris passed away. They didn't take Dumbledore out of the rest of the Harry Potter films...

iamtombombadil
19th Sep 2009, 01:42
Hey, here is a question for you since maroni's name came up. Why didn't the animated series use the Falcone's and Maroni's crime family names? Did they and I just missed it, or didn't they just change the name. Did Dini want to be different here? Just wondering. I liked the way Nolan portrayed Dent/two face in this one too, but he didn't capture the dual personality that was going on in Dent too well. He tried with the part of Dent playing the odds with the Joker's tool who he captured, but it wasn't enough.

stubs182
19th Sep 2009, 01:47
And no, it's not disrespectful to Heath to have someone else take over the role.

In your opinion that is, many people would argue that it is disrespectful and I think Nolan would be one of them. There are enough characters to drawn from that its not necessary to try and replace Heath, which btw I dont think any actor in Hollywood would want to even attempt after Ledgers performance.

lt_skittles
19th Sep 2009, 01:53
In your opinion that is, many people would argue that it is disrespectful and I think Nolan would be one of them. There are enough characters to drawn from that its not necessary to try and replace Heath, which btw I dont think any actor in Hollywood would want to even attempt after Ledgers performance.

It's not disrespectful, but it's not likely they will top his performance. I hope that if Nolan, decides that more than is good that we will see the Joker again, because we would have to see how he is after their last fight, and how both of them need each other to live. We don't need the Joker in the next movie, a good story, great villain, and where Batman went after hiding.

stubs182
19th Sep 2009, 02:07
It's not disrespectful, but it's not likely they will top his performance. I hope that if Nolan, decides that more than is good that we will see the Joker again, because we would have to see how he is after their last fight, and how both of them need each other to live. We don't need the Joker in the next movie, a good story, great villain, and where Batman went after hiding.

Im sorry but you cant just state that its not disrespectful. Thats people's opinions ok. You cant just decide wether its right or wrong. If Ledgers family said they would find it disrespectful would you just tell them they are wrong and to shut up about it? No.

We dont need to see Joker at all. Either he's in Arkham or he broke out, we dont know where he is. The comics and tv series didnt need to have Joker in every single episode, plenty of good Batman stories can be told without him

lt_skittles
19th Sep 2009, 02:42
Im sorry but you cant just state that its not disrespectful. Thats people's opinions ok. You cant just decide wether its right or wrong. If Ledgers family said they would find it disrespectful would you just tell them they are wrong and to shut up about it? No.

We dont need to see Joker at all. Either he's in Arkham or he broke out, we dont know where he is. The comics and tv series didnt need to have Joker in every single episode, plenty of good Batman stories can be told without him

It's ok, that's peoples' opinion, but to never see the Joker in a sequel is wrong. I never said in every single sequel. I meant right now the best thing to do would move on find someone else for a villain, and maybe end the series with the Joker, and Batman.

jtr7
19th Sep 2009, 02:44
Hey, here is a question for you since maroni's name came up. Why didn't the animated series use the Falcone's and Maroni's crime family names? Did they and I just missed it, or didn't they just change the name. Did Dini want to be different here? Just wondering. I liked the way Nolan portrayed Dent/two face in this one too, but he didn't capture the dual personality that was going on in Dent too well. He tried with the part of Dent playing the odds with the Joker's tool who he captured, but it wasn't enough.

The various incarnations in the movies are separate from each other, separate from the various separate incarnations of the comics, separate form the various television and cartoon incarnations. They are all separate with some overlap of fundamental elements, but the visions for each should not be treated as all part of one canon. They should each be taken on their own. The hundreds of people involved over the decades in different Batman/Dark Knight projects are not all collaborating, but respecting each other (those who are alive and involved or observing), and encouraging each new take on the characters and setting, but there is no strict adherence.

Prince Daka
19th Sep 2009, 03:08
Two-Face being kept alive in secret wouldn't be a bad idea especially if all of Gotham thinks he is dead. It'd be a good way to bring in Riddler who finds out about. He could reveal to Gotham City the truth about Harvey & Batman, & all the while new gangs (featuring another supervillain/gangster) are emerging trying to claim territory. Two-Face is revived & involves himself in the gang violence, while Riddler resorts to cyber-terrorism making it even harder for Batman to save the city.

stubs182
19th Sep 2009, 03:21
It's ok, that's peoples' opinion, but to never see the Joker in a sequel is wrong. I never said in every single sequel. I meant right now the best thing to do would move on find someone else for a villain, and maybe end the series with the Joker, and Batman.

How many Batman films do you think Nolan is gonna make? They're a literally dozens of other characters that Batman has yet to encounter, why is it so necessary for him to have to run into Joker again? In all likelihood the next film will be the last, ending Nolans trilogy. After that it could be years before Batman returns to the big screen. Then maybe someone might take on the role of the Joker again but I doubt it will happen for a very long time.

SolidSnake_123
19th Sep 2009, 04:30
I doubt it will happen for a very long time.

Ha we will all be in our 80's or 90's when the next after this trilogy is over, hehe.

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 07:37
I don't think it would be disrespectful at all to replace Heath Ledger. As the old saying goes, "the show must go on". It might be a bit tacky to have an impersonator running around in the makeup and suit and sayign "why so serious?", but I doubt Ledger would be opposed, given how much effort and care he put into his role and the movie.

As I said though, it would be tacky to try and replicate it. If I was handling it I'd have him coming out of Arkham worse than when he went in. Pale and sickly looking (no more white makeup), with a different personality. Since the Joker flip flops around so much, it wouldn't be so jarring as long as you kept his core character alive. And if I was handling it, I'd relegate him a very small appearance.

People die. That's a fact of life. And to retire such an important part of Batman because the actor who played him died is just foolish, IMO.

Revenant36
19th Sep 2009, 11:48
I agree with Old Ben and his Jedi wisdom. Recasting the Joker would in no way diminish what Heath achieved with his performance. We all know that Ledger would be returning as the Joker were he still alive. If Nolan originally planned to put the Joker in a 3rd Batman film then by not recasting him he would just be needlessly limiting himself and depriving fans of what would no doubt be a great story. As one of the doctors in "A Serious House On Serious Earth" hypothesised, the Joker has no real personality, he reinvents himself every day. How many people, upon the confirmation that Joker would indeed be the villain in The Dark Knight, said "What?! Nicholson's performance can never be topped!"? I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who still feel that way, not to mention those who believe that Mark Hamill's Joker is the definitive portrayal of him. Sure, Batman still has a huge rogues gallery that have yet to be seen on screen, but there may be a good reason for that. Several of them are not very interesting and several more simply wouldn't be good on the big screen.


Im sorry but you cant just state that its not disrespectful.

Umm, yeah, I can. I know that if I was in charge of Batman 3 I would recast Ledger. I also know that I have nothing but respect for the guy, but respect comes not from actions but the mindset behind those actions. A friend of mine got married in a church despite being rather strongly anti-Christian. He wasn't disrespecting the Church or his wedding vows by marrying in a church, he was respecting his wife's wish for a traditional wedding.


If Ledgers family said they would find it disrespectful would you just tell them they are wrong and to shut up about it? No.

Of course not, because that would then be disrespectful of them. I would, however, explain my reasoning behind my decision and offer to spend some time with them commemorating Heath.

At the risk of being flamed, I'm I'm starting to feel that Ledger's death is getting blown out of proportion. I genuinely believe that his portrayal of the Joker was one of the most praiseworthy performances in my lifetime, but I hate saying that because everybody instantly assumes that I'm jumping on the Ledger fan-boy bandwagon. People who never met the guy are acting like they lost their best friend. Do you really think Heath would have wanted to be placed on this pedestal if people were gonna cause it to let their art suffer? I doubt it. I can't say for sure, because I didn't know him, but he didn't strike me as the type to put personal celebrity before artistic or dramatic expression.

I'm not trying to undermine the tragedy of what happened - he was a highly gifted young performer, whose talent was just about to come into it's prime, and cruel circumstance took him from us far earlier than would seem just. I'm simply saying the perspective seems to have gotten a little lost...

stubs182
19th Sep 2009, 15:33
I'm not trying to undermine the tragedy of what happened

Well thats exactly what you are doing by stating your own opinion as undeniable fact, I respect your opinion that it wouldn't be direspectful but you arent doing the same to people who might think differently. You cant just say you're right and their wrong, thats just peoples feelings on the issue. You should just accept that, if people are upset you shouldnt try and convince them that they shouldnt be, thats very insensitive.

Also Nolan has never had a planned trilogy he doesnt even write the films his brother and David S Goyer do that. He wasnt going to do a sequel until they wrote the story for it and he though it was good enough to make. He could easily leave up to them again to write a new story without the Joker and then decide wether or not to make a third film.

Also you basically just completley disregarded every villain that Batman has encountered over the past 75 years by saying they are all boring? Batman Begins didnt have the Joker and some would argue that it was the better film. So far Batman has only encountered the tiniest fraction of villains in his universe why would he need to encounter the same guy again, if anything thats disrespecting the mythos.

Also Ledgers performance was so iconic and even more poignant after his death I dont think theres any chance that another actor is going to want to try and top it, especially when its completley unecessary. Nolans already wary about coming back for a 3rd film, to have that added pressure surrounding it would be ridiculous.

Abeja
19th Sep 2009, 15:57
Ledgers performance was awesome. But even if Heath were alive, I dont think Nolan would use Joker in the third other than a side villain. He killed off Two-Face thinking he was gonna still have Joker left and then a couple more villains. Now he has to start from scratch, Zasazzsasazszasz would be a great start since we saw him in BB.

Its not disrespectful to Heath if someone else comes along and portrays the Joker. Hell, its not really about respect, its about making a good movie. What are you gonna do in the third with Joker that you didnt do already? it was a 3+ hour movie.

Drazar
19th Sep 2009, 16:07
Also lets remember that it's also the opinion on Chris, does he want to see ANOTHER Person portray the Joker or not, if he feels it would be "bleh" for him, then he shouldn't be forced, right? Remember when Sam Raimi got forced to add Venom for Spider-Man 3? It didn't work out well. ;(

Batman The Trailer Hunter
19th Sep 2009, 16:37
Also lets remember that it's also the opinion on Chris, does he want to see ANOTHER Person portray the Joker or not, if he feels it would be "bleh" for him, then he shouldn't be forced, right? Remember when Sam Raimi got forced to add Venom for Spider-Man 3? It didn't work out well. ;(

If they didnt have sand man and just had venom and Harry it would have been better.



Heath Ledger isnt dead! Absolutely no tribute whatsoever about the best actor of 2008! Yeah right, with such a huge role you'd think they mention his death especially on the dvd, all they said on the credits was "In loving memory..."

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 16:58
Also lets remember that it's also the opinion on Chris, does he want to see ANOTHER Person portray the Joker or not, if he feels it would be "bleh" for him, then he shouldn't be forced, right? Remember when Sam Raimi got forced to add Venom for Spider-Man 3? It didn't work out well. ;(

Well obviously it comes down to Nolan and whether or not he would be comfortable with it. I don't think he should bend to studio pressure (Spider-Man 3 is a perfect example of why that's a bad thing), but if he feels comfortable with working with another actor to play Joker, I personally wouldn't hold it against him, especially if there were plans for that before Ledger died.

Revenant36
19th Sep 2009, 17:13
Well thats exactly what you are doing by stating your own opinion as undeniable fact,

It's an undeniable fact that I respect Ledger as a performer. It's also undeniable fact that if it were up to me I'd still recast him. That doesn't take away from my respect for Ledger. If somebody DOES feel that I've disrespected him then they've misconstrued the situation.


Also Nolan has never had a planned trilogy he doesnt even write the films his brother and David S Goyer do that.

Actually, on Batman Begins, Nolan gets a writing credit for the screenplay and for TDK he gets a credit for the story AND the screenplay. The only reason Goyer got involved in Batman Begins is coz Nolan didn't feel like he knew the Batman mythos well enough. And look at the ending for TDK. Do you honestly believe that's the work of somebody who doesn't have a plan for what's happening next? He's been so careful to give the fans what they want, do you really think he'd leave things with our favourite hero as a fugitive, suspected of murder? When Nolan was asked why he took on Batman Begins, his response was that when he found out WB wanted to reboot the Batman franchise he wanted to see it done right, by going back to the beginning. So a series of movies has always been on his mind. And after the success of these films, what better way to keep people searching for info on it than to say "I don't even know if it's gonna happen". Simple but effective.


Also you basically just completley disregarded every villain that Batman has encountered over the past 75 years by saying they are all boring?

Umm, where? I never said that Not once. I do believe the word I used was "several", not "all". It looks like either you're desperate to put a negative spin on what I have to say, or you simply need to read things more carefully...

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 17:23
The way the movies are structured is that there isn't a "villain of the movie" thing going on like other Superhero movies. There are characters, they aren't divided into hero and villain. So theres no real issue of "too many villains" because they don't fill the usual role of villains. They exist to serve the story. Thats part of why I think bringing Two-Face back would be a mistake. There was no "Two-Face", it was a part of Harvey Dent's character: The end part.

In a way, I feel similarly about the Joker. He's had his movie. He was set up as a symbol of anarchy and because he is that symbol I don't think he could have his own starring movie again. However, I think the character could serve a smaller role just fine, a little more than Crane in TDK. After all, a character doesn't need lots of screen time to make an impact. Look at Hannibal Lecter in Silence of the Lambs. 16 minutes of screen time, Oscar for Best Actor.

stubs182
19th Sep 2009, 17:39
It's an undeniable fact that I respect Ledger as a performer. It's also undeniable fact that if it were up to me I'd still recast him. That doesn't take away from my respect for Ledger. If somebody DOES feel that I've disrespected him then they've misconstrued the situation.



Actually, on Batman Begins, Nolan gets a writing credit for the screenplay and for TDK he gets a credit for the story AND the screenplay. The only reason Goyer got involved in Batman Begins is coz Nolan didn't feel like he knew the Batman mythos well enough. And look at the ending for TDK. Do you honestly believe that's the work of somebody who doesn't have a plan for what's happening next? He's been so careful to give the fans what they want, do you really think he'd leave things with our favourite hero as a fugitive, suspected of murder? When Nolan was asked why he took on Batman Begins, his response was that when he found out WB wanted to reboot the Batman franchise he wanted to see it done right, by going back to the beginning. So a series of movies has always been on his mind. And after the success of these films, what better way to keep people searching for info on it than to say "I don't even know if it's gonna happen". Simple but effective.



Umm, where? I never said that Not once. I do believe the word I used was "several", not "all". It looks like either you're desperate to put a negative spin on what I have to say, or you simply need to read things more carefully...

Dont try an make this isnt an argument, I didnt put a negative spin on anything and for you to imply that I have I find very insulting. The point is some people may find recasting the role so soon to be disrepectful and some people may not, its not about who's right or wrong and I think you'd do well to understand that and be a bit more sensitive of peoples feeling towards the matter. Christopher Nolan only wrote the screenplay for both films the story is credited to his brother and David S Goyer.

Despite your pedantic comment between 'several' and 'all' the point still stands that they're are plenty of other characters besides the Joker that could be used and it is ridiculous to say that they arent as good as the Joker therefore they cannot be used. There is more than enough in the mythos and lore of Batman that they dont need to resort to recasting the Joker.

Also you are very wrong Nolan has always been wary of doing a series of films, you might want to take note on his views of sequels which he often believes dont live up to the originals. These are his own words so Im afraid Im going to disregard your take on his 'apparent' plan because I do not beleive the man to be a liar. In all honesty I think its very likely that there wont even be a third film, at least not with Nolan attatched. From various interviews hes made it very apparent that he is very focused on the project at hand, not about planning trilogys or series. I for one would not be at all suprised if another film never happens, what better way to end it than on the high note that was TDK. ''How many good thrid films are there'' I believe Nolan once said himself.

Sure enough there will always be Batman films but wether or not Nolan or Bale will return, Im not so sure. Nolans been very non-comittal, he has other projects, Heath tragically passed away. If I were in his shoes I'd be more than happy to simply let it be.

lt_skittles
19th Sep 2009, 18:35
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-warner10-2009sep10,0,1779787.story


By Claudia Eller and Ben Fritz

September 10, 2009

The next movie up is "Jonah Hex," a supernatural western that has just completed production. Currently filming is the military-commando tale "The Losers." Warner's next major superhero movie will be "The Green Lantern," starring Ryan Reynolds, which begins shooting March 15 for release in the spring of 2011. A third Nolan-directed Batman movie is in development.

This is about the thing Warner Bros. did about a week ago.

Revenant36
19th Sep 2009, 18:36
You can say what you want about Nolan's views on sequels, but he's already made one. He made his comments about sequels and then he went on to make TDK, and he made his comments about "threequels" before (potentially) making a 3rd film. You might want to take note of historical precedence here. And check IMDB.com, Nolan has a story credit for TDK. Christopher Nolan, Emma Thomas, Charles Roven, Michael E Uslan and Christian Bale all have listings on IMDB.com for "untitled Batman project". Now, you could say that these are just rumours, which would be fair. But none of the other rumoured actors have this listing, and the full details are only available on IMDB pro, which is a paid service for people looking for contacts etc within the industry and not prone to publishing totally unsubstantiated rumours. I realise this doesn't confirm anything, but it certainly reinforces the idea of a TDK sequel.

And I never said that those villains not as good as Joker can't be used. If I believed that then I theoretically don't ever wanna see any other villain, since he's my personal favourite Bat-baddie. What I said (since it looks like I need to spell it out in crayon) was that there are many villains who ARE boring (such as Calendar Man or Cluemaster and several that would simply be unsuitable for the world Nolan has created (such as Man-Bat or Clayface) and this limits the amount of villains that can be used in a Nolan directed Batman Movie. Did the colours keep your attention long enough for you to get it this time...?

Prince Daka
19th Sep 2009, 21:39
And I never said that those villains not as good as Joker can't be used. If I believed that then I theoretically don't ever wanna see any other villain, since he's my personal favourite Bat-baddie. What I said (since it looks like I need to spell it out in crayon) was that there are many villains who ARE boring (such as Calendar Man or Cluemaster and several that would simply be unsuitable for the world Nolan has created (such as Man-Bat or Clayface) and this limits the amount of villains that can be used in a Nolan directed Batman Movie. Did the colours keep your attention long enough for you to get it this time...?

Calendar Man isn't boring, what do you base that off? ...but Cluemaster... well, yeah, he isn't so hot. I could see Nolan writing a serious version of Calendar Man. As far as Man-Bat & Clayface I honestly don't see it being impossible to throw them in if they were willing to do Two-Face. If we're supposed to believe a guy can have 3rd degree burns on half his body but still be able to go about his business - then I will believe a scientist who transforms into a giant bat & I can believe a man who can turn himself into clay & mold his image to mimic others.

I don't see why so many people feel Batman must be all realism now.. I mean, I don't mind a more mature story, but why take away all the fantasy elements, the paranormal stuff, etc.? That's what made Batman stories so fun for so many years.

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 21:55
Having 3rd degree burns is a lot more realistic than a man transforming into a giant bat. I thought Two-Face looked out of place in TDK still, though, because of how grotesque he was (though the design was PERFECT and Eckhart was truly the standout of the baddies IMO). I like a big of sci-fi in my Batman, and I like implausibility for the sake of entertainment (to an extent though), but Nolan's movies, especially TDK, have firmly nailed themselves into the strictly realististic vision of the character.

lt_skittles
19th Sep 2009, 22:08
Having 3rd degree burns is a lot more realistic than a man transforming into a giant bat. I thought Two-Face looked out of place in TDK still, though, because of how grotesque he was (though the design was PERFECT and Eckhart was truly the standout of the baddies IMO). I like a big of sci-fi in my Batman, and I like implausibility for the sake of entertainment (to an extent though), but Nolan's movies, especially TDK, have firmly nailed themselves into the strictly realististic vision of the character.

Somewhat I was going to say.

Prince Daka
19th Sep 2009, 23:11
Having 3rd degree burns is a lot more realistic than a man transforming into a giant bat. I thought Two-Face looked out of place in TDK still, though, because of how grotesque he was (though the design was PERFECT and Eckhart was truly the standout of the baddies IMO). I like a big of sci-fi in my Batman, and I like implausibility for the sake of entertainment (to an extent though), but Nolan's movies, especially TDK, have firmly nailed themselves into the strictly realististic vision of the character.

I understand that, but I can almost assure you that the next Nolan Batman will be the last because of how limiting the strictly realistic vision of the Batman universe is. It's why so many people are guessing Riddler will be the next new villain (apparent from fan-made movie posters) - because everyone else has bizarre features or powers. I'm cool with that, he's my favorite villain, but at the same time I can't help but miss the bizarre stuff & characters like Clayface. I guess that's why I really like "Batman: Brave & The Bold", because that show has realized how the bizarre can be just as brilliant as Nolan's realistic Batman universe.

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 23:16
Yeah, I don't really like the realistic thing too.

I prefer Batman to run around in grey skibbies and Joker to have bleached skin. I mean, it's a damn superhero story.

Drazar
19th Sep 2009, 23:21
Hey dudes the Dark Knight is the epitomy of realism. Just the other day my car broke down so i popped out my motorbike from it and drove to walls just to turn to the opposite direction and stuff! ;)

Old_BenKenobi
19th Sep 2009, 23:30
Hey dudes the Dark Knight is the epitomy of realism. Just the other day my car broke down so i popped out my motorbike from it and drove to walls just to turn to the opposite direction and stuff! ;)

And there is the flaw in the movie. It tries to be realistic, but it's an ultimately unrealistic concept no matter how you spin it, so the unrealistic parts stick out like a sore thumb.

Drazar
19th Sep 2009, 23:40
The term is Hyperrealism. Nolan just tries to make the unbelieveable into believeable, hence people talk about the realism of it, while in truth it isn't. =p

Anyhow if theres something i want for Batman 3 it's Leonardo Dicaprio as Black Mask. <3

Ace Antilles
20th Sep 2009, 01:13
In the Dark Knight novel and screenplay/script it cleary stated that Harvey died from his fall.

Old_BenKenobi
20th Sep 2009, 01:58
The term is Hyperrealism. Nolan just tries to make the unbelieveable into believeable, hence people talk about the realism of it, while in truth it isn't. =p

Anyhow if theres something i want for Batman 3 it's Leonardo Dicaprio as Black Mask. <3

Even if it's Hyperrealism, the suspension of disbelief if often broken and things just seem too hokey.

Prince Daka
20th Sep 2009, 03:41
You can't spell Hyperrealism without Realism, though, now can you? I can understand your point and EXCUSE me for not knowing a term only media arts grad students would know. Really, sorry ;)

& thank you Ace Antilles for confirming Harvey's death in the screenplay, I have been meaning to check on that. Many people are living in denial about it, including the actor himself hehe. Can't blame him for trying though. He'd make a lot of money, & Two-Face fans would be as happy as a pig in &#it.

I was just watching a little bit of Dark Knight too. I felt there was enough Harvey in the movie that including him again in the next movie is overkill anyway. I would like to know more about the Joker in the next movie. It is intentionally unclear, & makes Joker seem scarier, but I can't understand where he is coming from. If Jack Nicholson had anything over Heath it was that his character had an actual story arc, whereas TDK Joker is just an evil d-bag whose jokes/pranks involve murder against both the law-abiding & the criminal from beginning to end. It'd be strange for a TDK sequel to have no mention of Joker's background. I'm sure most of Gotham would want to know what the f his problem was...

SolidSnake_123
20th Sep 2009, 05:06
What's with all this Calendar Man hate? I think he's a awesome villain.

boowashere
20th Sep 2009, 05:25
hush in batman 3
'nuff said

Old_BenKenobi
20th Sep 2009, 16:48
What's with all this Calendar Man hate? I think he's a awesome villain.

Because he's basically a dumbed down Riddler. Except Riddler isn't so predictable. Factor in that his crimes are pretty petty and you've got a lame relic from the Silver Age.

And the only time he was interesting was when he was a Hannibal Lecter ripoff. Except Hannibal actually managed to escape by cutting off the face of a cop, switching clothes and being carried to safety in an ambulance, and also killed, gutted and strung up another cop to look like a giant butterfly for fun. What action does Calender Man get? He gets his ass kicked in Dark Victory by Sofia Falcone..

kalle90
20th Sep 2009, 17:29
I understand that, but I can almost assure you that the next Nolan Batman will be the last because of how limiting the strictly realistic vision of the Batman universe is. It's why so many people are guessing Riddler will be the next new villain (apparent from fan-made movie posters) - because everyone else has bizarre features or powers. I'm cool with that, he's my favorite villain, but at the same time I can't help but miss the bizarre stuff & characters like Clayface. I guess that's why I really like "Batman: Brave & The Bold", because that show has realized how the bizarre can be just as brilliant as Nolan's realistic Batman universe.

Agreed with that.

I hope Nolan stays realistic. I also hope he ends the series soon because otherwise it might get into unwanted paths. Rather make a new Batman movie series later on.

Riddler, Catwoman and Penguin aren't just some of the most popular villains, they're also very plausible characters in real world, and considering what happened in TDK. A narcissist mentally ill guy who likes riddles, a Batman copycat and a mob-boss. Most of the other still unseen villains are more of Spiderman scale villains.

As for Twoface. I don't really have an opinion. He could be dead but he could also be alive. I liked his acting, but I don't demand to see him again. I trust Nolan does the right thing.

Prince Daka
20th Sep 2009, 22:13
Because he's basically a dumbed down Riddler. Except Riddler isn't so predictable. Factor in that his crimes are pretty petty and you've got a lame relic from the Silver Age.

And the only time he was interesting was when he was a Hannibal Lecter ripoff. Except Hannibal actually managed to escape by cutting off the face of a cop, switching clothes and being carried to safety in an ambulance, and also killed, gutted and strung up another cop to look like a giant butterfly for fun. What action does Calender Man get? He gets his ass kicked in Dark Victory by Sofia Falcone..

Don't you remember CALENDAR KING?! lol

seriously, watch the episode "Legends of the Dark Mite" (the show Batman:Brave & the Bold) if you want to see the best Calendar Man appearance.

Batman The Trailer Hunter
21st Sep 2009, 15:18
Wow this thread has gone to pot!

lukeob94
22nd Sep 2009, 05:28
i think people need to be a lil more realistic


1)there might NOT BE another movie
2) nolans film ="realistic"=no crock,clayface,manbat, unless you really want stripped charcters
3) most proabable characters(no particular order)

1)riddler
2)two face (if not dead)
3)catwoman(she's really popular character and has potential for a good storyline)
scarecrow(he's been in all of the movies so far but we have yet to even see him at his full potential in costume,unless you consider that one part in begins


4) not likely but probable

penguin(doubts)

poison ivy(would really have to play a secondary role to someother villain and she can't be all green and have herbakinesis)

harley quinn(popular yes,good storyline possibility? yes,possible to fit into a film without joker?not likely.

5) very low chance

hush
deadshot
taliah as ghul
madhatter

complicated character,ssome of which rely on other charcters to make sense and are not that popular.

Old_BenKenobi
22nd Sep 2009, 05:34
I think Bane would fit best storywise.

lt_skittles
22nd Sep 2009, 05:39
Killer Croc could be done the same way they did it the anime with a skin condition.

Old_BenKenobi
22nd Sep 2009, 14:05
Yeah, the skin condition would be plausible.

Poison Ivy would actually be real easy. In the original seasons of TAS she didn't have superpowers, she used poison lipstick. The only fantastical element was her immunity to toxins, and I'm sure there's a way they could work that out.

Sir Legendhead
22nd Sep 2009, 15:13
Hey dudes the Dark Knight is the epitomy of realism. Just the other day my car broke down so i popped out my motorbike from it and drove to walls just to turn to the opposite direction and stuff! ;)Lol! Yeah, that reminds me of when I forgot where I parked my car and had to turn every cell phone in the city into a massive sonar array so I could find it. Good times, good times. :)

And seriously, I still want Javier Bardem to play Bane (the comics version who grew up in a South American prison, not the jacked up steroid monkey from the cartoons). His performance in No Country for Old Men shows that he could pull it off. He could use some time with the weights, but he could do it.

http://www.elpais.com/recorte/20070307elpepucul_29/LCO340/Ies/Javier_Bardem_hoy_Madrid.jpg

Old_BenKenobi
22nd Sep 2009, 15:33
Javier Bardem has been my #1 choice for Bane since I saw No Country for Old Men. Perfect in pretty much every way.

Revenant36
22nd Sep 2009, 16:58
Ooh, I never thought of that. Good call, guys...

Vigilance
22nd Sep 2009, 19:49
And there is the flaw in the movie. It tries to be realistic, but it's an ultimately unrealistic concept no matter how you spin it, so the unrealistic parts stick out like a sore thumb.

The things TDK REALLY could have done without, for me:
- Sonar Vision
- Batbike
- Grappling Joker's leg after throwing him over the edge.

Old_BenKenobi
22nd Sep 2009, 20:30
The things TDK REALLY could have done without, for me:
- Sonar Vision
- Batbike
- Grappling Joker's leg after throwing him over the edge.

I think the finger-printing off the bullet shards is a worthy addition to that list.

I thought the Bat-pod was pretty cool, actually.