# Why Chris Nolan should NOT make Batman 3



## Neo-jplaya (Mar 16, 2009)

okay, maybe this is superstition up the ass, but it must be said. mr. Nolan should not make a third Batman. why? *Because in the history of film, there has never been 3 great superhero movies.* think about it. every superhero movie that has released a third part has either had it be kind of good, a letdown, or god-awful. Spiderman 3, X-Men3, Superman 3, Blade:Trinity, even the third Batman of the Burton/Schumacher era all have gotten mediocre to flat out bad grades. yes it's suerstition, but it's true. your thoughts?


----------



## Rukia (Mar 16, 2009)

Because the first two sucked?  

I think they should bring Joel Schumacher in.


----------



## mystictrunks (Mar 16, 2009)

Spider-Man 3 was only a let down because the studio made bitch moves.


----------



## Adonis (Mar 16, 2009)

Nolan should stop because he blew his load with TDK and hype-lightning won't strike twice without an antagonist like The Joker.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 16, 2009)

lol, yup, Nolan should retire from it. People forget that Ledger came to Nolan, which means that Nolan isn't necessarily responcible for him anyway. Even Nolan, Bale and Caine express doubts that a third movie will be worthwhile. The question is, will Nolan sell out?

I didn't mind Spiderman 3. In fact, I even kind of liked it, but it was the result of selling out.


----------



## Gooba (Mar 16, 2009)

Evil Dead 3.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 16, 2009)

Hmmmmm, true, but I kind of consider Army of Darkness to be more or less of a reboot.


----------



## Koi (Mar 17, 2009)

leave this man's cock alone


----------



## Mider T (Mar 17, 2009)

Christian Bale is no Michael Caine.


----------



## Ziko (Mar 17, 2009)

I agree. The Dark Knight was such an awesome movie and a sequel is doomed to be worse then the last one. There is no better villain than the Joker in the Batman universe and I can't see how the third movie can be better. So let the masterpiece be left alone and go down in history!


----------



## Vault (Mar 17, 2009)

Gooba said:


> Evil Dead 3.



All your arguments died here


----------



## Starrk (Mar 17, 2009)

You can't use the original _Batman_ movie series as an example.

Burton directed the first two. He decided to drop out of the 3rd one, so they got a new director. It sucked.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Mar 17, 2009)

I guess Batman begins and The dark knight are so bad you dont want a third one, huh??

Plus, except for Spiderman all the movies you mentioned werent directed by the same guy.


----------



## Chee (Mar 17, 2009)

Usually the second movie sucks ass and that was proved wrong.

I'm more of the relax and wait and see what happens. I'm not gonna agrue anymore on whether or not he'll do the third one. Why? I'm not Nolan. He'll do it if he wants to. He said he would if the screenplay was the right one, and he hasn't dissappointed so far. So why would he start now? You guys just want something to rant about.

Seriously? Have you seen his other films? None of them are rotten by the way. He's a smart man, he'll do the right thing. 



> People forget that Ledger came to Nolan, which means that Nolan isn't necessarily responcible for him anyway.



I thought I heard Nolan say he saw Brokeback Mountain one day and decided that that actor had some serious ballz.


----------



## Grape (Mar 17, 2009)

I still say the story needs to be completed. 

Four films.


----------



## Chee (Mar 17, 2009)

Three films. 

Trilogies are sexy. pek


----------



## ez (Mar 17, 2009)

just because others have failed doesn't mean he will as well


----------



## Ennoea (Mar 17, 2009)

This is just dumb, Batman 3 is gonna get made and I would prefer it to be Nolan than anyone else, at this point WB need to let him as much time as he want rather than rushing it in to production. 

Oh and Evil Dead 3 shoudln't even count since the second one was a remake and the thrid one wasn't better than the first anyway.


----------



## Slice (Mar 17, 2009)

Well if he does make a third one it will have a hard time setting up a good villain.
With the Joker and Twoface out the options are limited.

If i remember correctly Nolan said once that his version would neither feature Robin nor Catwoman.

My money would be on a (completely redesigned) Riddler or Hush.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 17, 2009)

The problem Nolan will have is if the studios decide to hijack it. They will do what they did to Spiderman 3(and Raimi is a more popular director than Nolan). Even Hitchcock suffered when the studio got involved, and he's a far superior director to Raimi and Nolan. That's what concerns me. If Nolan was 100% control, then maybe it will turn out good enough.....but it depends how much money they offer him.



Chee said:


> Usually the second movie sucks ass and that was proved wrong.
> 
> I'm more of the relax and wait and see what happens. I'm not gonna agrue anymore on whether or not he'll do the third one. Why? I'm not Nolan. He'll do it if he wants to. He said he would if the screenplay was the right one, and he hasn't dissappointed so far. So why would he start now? You guys just want something to rant about.
> 
> ...



Nope. Heath saw "Begins", approached Nolan, told him his ideas on using the joker, Nolan agreed, end of story. 

It's not uncommon for directors to take that credit, although it's possible that seeing Brokeback Mountain simply confirmed that Ledger could do it, but Ledger approached Nolan first.


----------



## Chee (Mar 17, 2009)

Okay. I remember seeing an interview where he mentioned that. Do you have a link or something?

I don't think the studio will try to hijack it, I dunno, if they are stupid then they might. But if they are smart they will keep it to a minimum. Since whatever Nolan did to TDK worked, its common sense to leave him alone. Then again, some of these studio executives are retards.


----------



## T4R0K (Mar 17, 2009)

Slice said:


> If i remember correctly Nolan said once that his version would* neither feature Robin nor Catwoman.
> *
> My money would be on a (completely redesigned) Riddler or Hush.



Good.

And the Riddler would be a great villain for a third movie, I agree !


----------



## Graham Aker (Mar 17, 2009)

> The problem Nolan will have is if the studios decide to hijack it.


Then they better get themselves ready for Bale to hand them their bottoms on a silver platter.

And Black Mask for third film main villain FTW!!


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 17, 2009)

Chee said:


> Okay. I remember seeing an interview where he mentioned that. Do you have a link or something?
> 
> I don't think the studio will try to hijack it, I dunno, if they are stupid then they might. But if they are smart they will keep it to a minimum. Since whatever Nolan did to TDK worked, its common sense to leave him alone. Then again, some of these studio executives are retards.



Do I ever have links?

Yes, it would be stupid of them. But fuck, it's how movies like "Haunting of Molly Hartley" are made.

lol, Bale said he probably wouldn't do another Batman movie is Nolan doesn't......so.......I doubt there will be any handing bottoms. Personally, as much as I like Bale, he isn't the perfect Batman imo.......There has yet to be a perfect Batman.....


----------



## Chee (Mar 17, 2009)

> Do I ever have links?



Would've been nice for a change. 

Anyways, I don't see the studio changing anything drastically for the next installment. If anything, they should stay out of it if they were smart. The only thing I can see the studio telling Nolan to do is keep it a PG-13 rating. After that, it should be all Nolan and his team.


----------



## Violent-nin (Mar 17, 2009)

A 3rd Batman movie will be made either way. I very much doubt the 3rd movie would top TDK even if Nolan returns, like people said before there is no better villain in the Batman Universe than The Joker.


----------



## Kahvehane (Mar 17, 2009)

What some people tend to forget is that a substantial portion of TDK's success is attributed to Heath Ledger _being_ the Joker, not merely the Joker's inclusion in the story of the film. It's about the _performance_. 

I'm not saying that it was all Ledger and that therefore a third movie would suck due to his absense and in light of his acheivements in the previous film. The film was also loaded with mind-blowing performers like Caine, Oldman, and Bale. And don't forget the fearless director I think that if they let Nolan take the wheel again there's a great chance that a mind-blowing third movie will be conceived. It would be hard, but not impossible. They just can't substitute the perfection of the performance with the pursuit of profit.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 17, 2009)

screenies

(because links are your friend, MH)



> To be honest, I don't exactly remember when it came to pass. *I'd met with Heath several times on projects in the past and nothing had ever come of it. And I think he'd heard I was looking for someone to play the Joker before we had a script, and I'd heard that he was really actually into the idea. And we met and we got each other*. We both had exactly the same concept in our heads of who that guy would be in this film in the way that we'd interpreted it. It wasn't specific to, "Oh, he's going to look like this or talk like that" at all. It was about a psychological concept. It was about a character concept. It was about the threat of anarchy. It was about anarchy being the most frightening thing there is. Chaos and anarchy in this day and age, and I think it is. It's certainly the thing I'm most afraid of



Both of them went to each other. Nolan had wanted to work with Heath, Heath was interested in playing the Joker, the two had a meeting about it and the rest is history. Neither actually sought the other out thouh.


----------



## Kahvehane (Mar 17, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> Both of them went to each other. Nolan had wanted to work with Heath, Heath was interested in playing the Joker, the two had a meeting about it and the rest is history. Neither actually sought the other out thouh.




Kind of goes to show how accidental brilliance really is.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 17, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> screenies
> 
> (because links are your friend, MH)
> 
> ...



"And I think he'd heard I was looking for someone to play the Joker before we had a script and I'd heard that he was really actually into the idea."

This implies that Ledger sent his agent to Nolan(which means he approached Nolan for it).


----------



## mystictrunks (Mar 17, 2009)

Chee said:


> Usually the second movie sucks ass and that was proved wrong.





The sequels to super hero movies are usually as good, if not better than the first.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 17, 2009)

lol.....oh yeah, X-men 2, Spiderman 2, Superman 2, Batman Returns and Fantastic Four 2 are either regarded as superior or equal by many people.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 17, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> "And I think he'd heard I was looking for someone to play the Joker before we had a script and I'd heard that he was really actually into the idea."
> 
> This implies that Ledger sent his agent to Nolan(which means he approached Nolan for it).



Implies being the key word. It's vaguer than you and your no-links made it sound.

It is also important that Nolan was wanting to work with him already- if not neccesarily on this-, and that he and Heath apparently had similar ideas about what the Joker was like. Making the Joker- or starting to make him- was more of a mutual thing.


----------



## Chee (Mar 17, 2009)

My gawd, Nolan has created monsters. Isn't this like the 15,000th thread and debate over TDK? 



mystictrunks said:


> The sequels to super hero movies are usually as good, if not better than the first.



Movies in general.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 17, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> Implies being the key word. It's vaguer than you and your no-links made it sound.
> 
> It is also important that Nolan was wanting to work with him already- if not neccesarily on this-, and that he and Heath apparently had similar ideas about what the Joker was like. Making the Joker- or starting to make him- was more of a mutual thing.




Fact is, in your link, Chris says that Heath had heard he was looking for a Joker, which means he got his agent to contact Chris.

HOOOOOWWWWEEEEVVVEEER, here's a link for you. Link removed

"When Chris came to me, I'd already seen Batman Begins and I really liked it. Because I'd already seen it, I already knew the world, which he had created. I instantly knew of an angle........."

So their stories are different as to who went to who.Both are saying that the other went to them first. I don't think it's ego, as both are giving eachother extensive credit. The fact is, something is really missing from the story.


----------



## spaZ (Mar 18, 2009)

I hope a third is made, the first two are great movies and the third probably wouldn't even be so bad.


----------



## plox (Mar 21, 2009)

if there is a third movie it should be about batman: no mans land


----------



## Chee (Mar 21, 2009)

plox said:


> if there is a third movie it should be about batman: no mans land



They might take ideas, but it won't be based on any of the comics. The other two weren't.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 21, 2009)

They should replace Chris Nolan with........the guy who directed "Fantastic Four".

Then get Nicholas Cage as the new Batman.


----------



## Chee (Mar 21, 2009)

No. NO. NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!



Why would you even type those foul words!?


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 21, 2009)

Could be worse...................

Could be directed by Uwe Boll and starring David Hasslehoff as Batman and Mathew Broderick as Riddler.


----------



## Chee (Mar 21, 2009)

Or Shuumachhherrrr gets the gig again. :ho


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 21, 2009)

Actually, if Shumacher was given the reigns to do another one.....it probably wouldn't be that bad. Even he acknowledges Batman and Robin sucked, so if he did it, I think it would turn out alright.

After all, its not like all of his filmography sucks.


----------



## Para (Mar 21, 2009)

Gooba said:


> Evil Dead 3.



This.

Plus as people have said, just because other people have failed in the past, there is no need to give up on a third. It could be great; it could be far better than the previous two. No-one knows until opening day.


----------



## Chee (Mar 21, 2009)

If the next one is awesomer than TDK, it better be nominated. Or I'll be so mad.


----------



## Denji (Mar 22, 2009)

The way I see it, Nolan has such a good grasp on the Batman series that as long as the studios stay out of his way, there is little to no chance that a third film under his direction will be bad.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 22, 2009)

Chee said:


> They might take ideas, but it won't be based on any of the comics. The other two weren't.



Yes they were.


----------



## Chee (Mar 22, 2009)

No they weren't. A lot of it was taken out from the comic books like The Long Halloween for example, but it wasn't based solely on one comic book.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 22, 2009)

Chee said:


> No they weren't. A lot of it was taken out from the comic books like The Long Halloween for example, but it wasn't based solely on one comic book.



That's not what you said. You said they were'nt based on any of the _comics_, not _"solely on one comic."_


----------



## mystictrunks (Mar 22, 2009)

Chee said:


> No they weren't. A lot of it was taken out from the comic books like The Long Halloween for example, but it wasn't based solely on one comic book.



But they were based on the comic books. All comic book movies are based on comic books whether they directly use the comic book stories or not. Begins and TDK's plot were like 70-80% comic based.


----------



## Chee (Mar 22, 2009)

^^ It won't be based on one single comic though, these Batman movies take the idea of Batman and make it their own.



masamune1 said:


> That's not what you said. You said they were'nt based on any of the _comics_, not _"solely on one comic."_



Sorry I wasn't clear enough then.


----------



## Urarenge2005 (Mar 22, 2009)

If it should get made:

Write Bane in Somehow. Break Batman's Back. End credits role..... Epic Trilogy.


----------



## blackshikamaru (Mar 23, 2009)

Chee said:


> ^^ It won't be based on one single comic though, these Batman movies take the idea of Batman and make it their own.



What is the point you're trying to make? I'm confused here. Dumb it down for me because it seems like you're trying to say that because they take material from the comics but not just ONE SINGLE COMIC it's somehow different than being based on comics.


----------



## Byakuya (Mar 23, 2009)

If he doesn't, someone else will.

and they would probably fail harder.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 23, 2009)

Fact is, there should be another 10 _Batman_ films, with the last probably being some kind of adaptation of _The Dark Knight Returns._

You adapt a comic book because you are trying to tell the story in a new way. Ending the series here, or at number three, or even at number 4, is'nt telling the story properly- it's cutting it short. He is one of the best characters to be adapted for a film and he has some of the highest potential.


----------



## Chee (Mar 23, 2009)

^^ Oh, shut up Masa. You and me both know Nolan is never going to think about doing 10 films. Hell, not even another director would do that much. 



blackshikamaru said:


> What is the point you're trying to make? I'm confused here. Dumb it down for me because it seems like you're trying to say that because they take material from the comics but not just ONE SINGLE COMIC it's somehow different than being based on comics.



They take bits and pieces of different comic books (The Long Halloween one was one of them) for inspiration and create their own movie. It's related to the comic book, but its a completely different thing in terms of plot and story.

Like Batman Begins, I don't think there was any comic where it explored Bruce Wayne's beginnings (reply if I'm wrong, I'm new to the comic book universe), like how he learned how to fight and how he became the Batman. And no, him saying that he did all that stuff isn't the same as showing it.

Ras Al Ghul and Scarecrow were both in the same movie, but I don't think they were in one comic book together. The mob bosses are a little bit more focused on in the Nolan's Batman.

Rachel is a completely new character.

What I was originally responding to was a guy that said they should make a Batman movie about the...I forgot....but you get the idea. And I simply said that they haven't made a movie about The Long Halloween or The Dark Knight Returns so the next one won't be any different.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 23, 2009)

Chee said:


> ^^ Oh, shut up Masa. You and me both know Nolan is never going to think about doing 10 films. Hell, not even another director would do that much.



"Shut up, Masa"? 

I mean, geez, I thought you and I got along all right. Guess I was wrong.

I never said that Nolan would do 10 films. I fully expect that more than three will be made and regardless Nolan will probably stop directing them at the next one, though he might stay on as producer. Obviously a new director will be brought in, even if they only make a handful more.



> They take bits and pieces of different comic books (The Long Halloween one was one of them) for inspiration and create their own movie. It's related to the comic book, but its a completely different thing in terms of plot and story.



It's not completely different. Both are set in the early years of Batman's career, deal heavily with his war on the Mob, and are concerned with their replacement by supervillains (though the sequel, _Dark Victory_, is more explicit with that theme). It shares many characters and culminates inthe transformation of Harvey Dent into Two-Face.

Joker was based mostly on his early appearances, _Killing Joke_ (where he tries to make points about morality and sanity by driving a main character insane) and _The Man Who Laughs_ (which includes the inspiration for his murders of Loeb and the attack on Bruce Wayne's home). Quite a lot wastaken from the comics, if modified.



> Like Batman Begins, I don't think there was any comic where it explored Bruce Wayne's beginnings (reply if I'm wrong, I'm new to the comic book universe), like how he learned how to fight and how he became the Batman. And no, him saying that he did all that stuff isn't the same as showing it.



_The Man Who Falls_ and _Batman: Year One._; the former being based on several comics that _did_ explore his beginnings, the latter involving his initial attack on the Falcone's which was adapted into the second act of _Begins._ 



> Ras Al Ghul and Scarecrow were both in the same movie, but I don't think they were in one comic book together. The mob bosses are a little bit more focused on in the Nolan's Batman.



They were focused on heavily-more heavily- in _Year One_ and it's sequels.



> Rachel is a completely new character.



Yes, but she does fulfill roles carried out by other characters, such as Harvey's wife. Roughly, but it is there.



> What I was originally responding to was a guy that said they should make a Batman movie about the...I forgot....but you get the idea. And I simply said that they haven't made a movie about The Long Halloween or Batman Returns (the graphic novel) so the next one won't be any different.



That does'nt quite follow. Just because the first two were'nt closely adapted does'nt mean the next one won't be.

Though that depends on what you consider to be a close adaptation.


----------



## Chee (Mar 23, 2009)

Exactly my point. All that is taken from the comic books, but its not an strict adaptation of the comic books. It's all mashed up into a new thing.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 23, 2009)

^Your "point" makes it sound like you are underestimating just how much the films owe the comics, though. 

The reason they did'nt try to perfectly or closely adapt the likes of _Long Halloween_ is because,amongst other things, they had too many villains and a plot that depends too much on the reader knowing who is who and what is going on. _TDK_ sacrificed a lot to develop certain characters and ideas better.

But that does'nt mean that future films won't be closer adaptations, since the characters will be more established as the series progresses. And that is the point- just because the first two films were looser adaptations does'nt mean that they won't properly adapt a story one day.


----------



## Chee (Mar 23, 2009)

Oh, I don't know, maybe because Nolan's created a series of connecting films and having the third one based solely on a comic book would interrupt the flow?

For example using No Man's Land (like someone suggested) for the third one would be absurd since Superman obviously has no part in Nolan's universe.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 23, 2009)

Chee said:


> Oh, I don't know, maybe because Nolan's created a series of connecting films and having the third one based solely on a comic book would interrupt the flow?
> 
> For example using No Man's Land (like someone suggested) for the third one would be absurd since Superman obviously has no part in Nolan's universe.



It would'nt interrupt the flow if the comic adapted fit into the story. _Dark Victory_, for example, would probably fit quite well into the Nolan series, even as the next film.

Chee, you seem to be talking about 100% faitful adaptations- *no* adaptation is 100% fathful to the story. Superman would'nt fit, but that's not a problem because an adaptation of _No Man's Land_ would probably just drop him, and would drop and change a lot of things if only to manage to fit what is now 5 graphic novels into one film (Superman is'nt even that important to that story- it's really just an extended cameo). 

If _NML_ was adapted, of course it would change several things. But it would still be an adaptation.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Mar 23, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> Could be *worse*...................
> 
> Could be directed by Uwe Boll and *starring David Hasslehoff *as Batman and Mathew Broderick as Riddler.



bolded parts dont compute


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 23, 2009)

lol, SH, have you watched "Anaconda 3" yet?


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Mar 23, 2009)

the first aand second were so horrible i dont have enough stamna with that shit

I even pay to see the second one in cinemas


----------



## Batman (Mar 23, 2009)

The riddler needs to be redeemed.


----------



## masamune1 (Mar 23, 2009)

But not yet.


----------



## MartialHorror (Mar 23, 2009)

Spanish Hoffkage said:


> the first aand second were so horrible i dont have enough stamna with that shit
> 
> I even pay to see the second one in cinemas



But Hasslehoff is in it, and didn't you just imply that Hasslehoff can do no wrong?

I actually liked the 1st one(been years since I've seen it), even though it has some terrible aspects about it. I liked the camera work though. The sequel did nothing for me.....which was surprising as the trailer looked good.


----------



## Spanish Hoffkage (Mar 23, 2009)

isnt that movie just for american tv??

Hoff and wrong cant go in the same sentence

Anaconda 1 and 2 were horrible shit

the sequel even worse, which was hard

CGI looked like hippo shit


----------



## mystictrunks (Mar 23, 2009)

Chee said:


> They take bits and pieces of different comic books (The Long Halloween one was one of them) for inspiration and create their own movie. It's related to the comic book, but its a completely different thing in terms of plot and story.


No it isn't completely different. 



> Ras Al Ghul and Scarecrow were both in the same movie, but I don't think they were in one comic book together.


Every Batvillain has teamed up with every Batvillain.



> The mob bosses are a little bit more focused on in the Nolan's Batman.


They get plenty of attention in Detective, Nightwing, Robin, Batgirl, and many many Batman:Subtitle series/mini-series.





> What I was originally responding to was a guy that said they should make a Batman movie about the...I forgot....but you get the idea. And I simply said that they haven't made a movie about The Long Halloween or The Dark Knight Returns so the next one won't be any different.


They made a movie about half of Year One, they made a movie about 1/3 of The Long Halloween. Both of those movies had elements from other comics in them as well. To say the Nolanverse is original is silly, it's just enjoyable.


----------

