Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rotten Tomatoes)   "Whoever Warner Bros hires to reboot the 'Batman' films a few years from now, I wish you luck. The bar is as high as it could possibly be"   (rottentomatoes.com) divider line 176
    More: Cool, Batman, Time Out New York, Moviefone, Ant-Man, HitFix, TDKR, La Grande, reboot  
•       •       •

7393 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 Jul 2012 at 1:02 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-16 11:11:19 AM  
Which is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.
 
2012-07-16 11:18:54 AM  
Your only chance will be to hire an actual good writer.

And since the goddamn SAG has made that illegal in Hollywood, you're screwed.
 
2012-07-16 11:22:29 AM  
I'm sick of Batman movies.
 
2012-07-16 11:38:25 AM  
comic book, radio serials, movies serials, television show, movie based on tv show, Batman movies of the 80's/90's, now these three. One can only hope that they will wait more than 10 years to reboot. But as the Amazing bomb Spiderman has shown us...it ain't gonna happen.
 
2012-07-16 12:12:21 PM  
Can they wait a decade or so?
 
2012-07-16 12:22:02 PM  
If you attempt another Batman reboot, your punishment must be more severe.
 
2012-07-16 12:52:01 PM  
Yeah, yeah... But what does Armond White think?
 
2012-07-16 12:58:00 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: I'm sick of Batman movies.


Me too. My god.

And I'm sick of Christian Bale talking with gravel in his mouth.
 
2012-07-16 01:02:24 PM  
They can always point to the stupid magic microwave gun in the first one, and say "We may suck, but at least we aren't that stupid".
 
2012-07-16 01:07:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Bonkthat_Again: I'm sick of Batman movies.

Me too. My god.

And I'm sick of Christian Bale talking with gravel in his mouth.


why do you hate Batman TAS?
 
2012-07-16 01:08:42 PM  
A few years from now? Yeah right.

I'll bet the pre-production phase will commence in eight months,tops.
 
2012-07-16 01:12:03 PM  
anywho, this is easy

two words: batman beyond

you are welcome warner bros
 
2012-07-16 01:12:40 PM  

JerseyTim: Which is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.


I don't know I think a reboot in the style of Batman Brave and the Bold would be awesome. You know square jawed shining good guy Batman, to contrast the dark and gritty Batman that we have seen lately.
 
2012-07-16 01:13:06 PM  
Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.
 
2012-07-16 01:13:39 PM  

meat0918: Can they wait a decade or so?


No, because then they wouldn't be able to make money off of people by mocking them.
 
2012-07-16 01:25:27 PM  

JerseyTim: Which is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.


Agreed.

That was one of the nice things about the Keaton Batman movie- they didn't bother to do a big origin story or anything else for Batman. It was just the Batman we already knew. The Nolan Batman has been just fine- great story, etc., but other than the increased grittiness, it hasn't brought much else to the plate.

Just do a Batman movie... pick a villain and get to it. There's no need to boot jack shiat. If you want to design your own Batmobile, go for it, but you don't need to come up with some kind of "here's how THIS guy got all his stuff." We're already suspending a fair amount of disbelief, we'll let the origin BS slide too.
 
2012-07-16 01:27:07 PM  
Yeah, considering Bruce Wayne dies in TDKR, I'd say the bar is pretty farking high.

Oh well, we'll probably get a prequel or another origin story.
 
2012-07-16 01:28:07 PM  

JerseyTim: At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.


There isn't really a need for ANY origin story - it's always the least interesting part of the superhero, yet it's the one we always get a movie focusing on.

Would Indiana Jones be a better film series if the first one had him studying archaeology, learning how to fight Nazis with a whip and buying a fedora?
 
2012-07-16 01:29:18 PM  
I'd love to see more batman films the new batman comics are excellent. The return of Bruce Wayne and Batman Incorporated might be too hard to adapt to screen directly but damn if they weren't fine books. I also second this idea:

Slaves2Darkness: Batman Brave and the Bold would be awesome

 
2012-07-16 01:29:29 PM  
The next Batman should be an Adam West-style Batman. It will be so bad it'll wrap around to awesome
 
2012-07-16 01:30:24 PM  
I'm looking forward to the eventual reboot even though it can never be as good as I want it to be because Kevin Conroy is The One True Batman to me.

I'd love to see a GOOD movie with the Riddler though.
 
2012-07-16 01:31:31 PM  

Gunther: There isn't really a need for ANY origin story - it's always the least interesting part of the superhero, yet it's the one we always get a movie focusing on.


Watch 'Batman:Year One' It's a great origin story movie.
 
2012-07-16 01:33:53 PM  
One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.
 
2012-07-16 01:35:30 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.


Wasn't he kicked off rotten tomatoes?
 
2012-07-16 01:38:44 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, considering Bruce Wayne dies in TDKR, I'd say the bar is pretty farking high.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-16 01:39:00 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.


It's a review from somebody who's normally pretty mainstream (agrees with tomatometer 75% of the time), but that hasn't stopped 290 people already from posting and calling him a troll because he didn't like it.
 
2012-07-16 01:39:42 PM  

FreetardoRivera: anywho, this is easy

two words: batman beyond

you are welcome warner bros


This. It makes sense, and with our current absolute distaste for corporations, Derek Powers would be an excellent villain.

/Just keep the glowing skeleton effect at under 10 mil, please.
 
2012-07-16 01:39:44 PM  
The next Batman movie will be one that folds him into the DC Comic universe with an eye making a Justice League movie in 5 or 6 years time. That is why it will be a reboot instead of continuation.
 
2012-07-16 01:39:59 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: JerseyTim: Which is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.

I don't know I think a reboot in the style of Batman Brave and the Bold would be awesome. You know square jawed shining good guy Batman, to contrast the dark and gritty Batman that we have seen lately.


Maybe a Tales Of The Dark Knight-style series. Each movie a different type. One, a B&B story, another could be Beyond, yet another one of the Elseworlds stories. At least a short, live-action telling of the "Boner" story.
 
2012-07-16 01:41:00 PM  
Hmm, 96% on RT and it's definitely going to be a box office smash.

Better find out what Farkers think about it first.
 
2012-07-16 01:44:01 PM  

TsarTom: Yeah, yeah... But what does Armond White think?


I am so looking forward to this. I am hoping for a truly epic troll.
 
2012-07-16 01:48:24 PM  

MisterLoki: TsarTom: Yeah, yeah... But what does Armond White think?

I am so looking forward to this. I am hoping for a truly epic troll.


At this point, the only way Armond could troll expectations is by agreeing with the Tomatometer consensus that TDKR is a good movie.
 
2012-07-16 01:51:15 PM  

EnviroDude: But as the Amazing bomb Spiderman has shown us..


Half a billion dollars is considered a bomb now?
 
2012-07-16 01:54:03 PM  
Boy I can't wait until we just get farking coloring book movies year round and nothing else. Probably by 2013 or 14 at this rate.
 
2012-07-16 01:55:04 PM  
I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.
 
2012-07-16 01:57:33 PM  

devilEther: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, considering Bruce Wayne dies in TDKR, I'd say the bar is pretty farking high.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 681x602]


www.cartoonspot.net

Umm geez let's see. Wayne... Wayne Knight? Bruce Wayne in a film called the Dark Knight Rises... um. Ok the names are similar... Well I'm stumped. In that scene he says "we got Dodgson here". Are you saying "we got spoilers here"? Hrm, no that wouldn't make much sense. I guess there's a close resemblance of names. If a toddler or someone of young age exclaimed that the two were similar, surrounding adults would smile and nod at the child. Aside from that I have no idea what you're going for here.
 
2012-07-16 01:58:17 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Yeah, considering Bruce Wayne dies in TDKR, I'd say the bar is pretty farking high.

Oh well, we'll probably get a prequel or another origin story.


Neil Gaiman actually pretty much wrote a story that already covers that. Bruce dies, but is reincarnated into a reboot of his life each time. Basically, his reward for being Batman is being able to experience his childhood over and over again.
 
2012-07-16 02:01:50 PM  

Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.


See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.
 
2012-07-16 02:03:06 PM  

kevinatilusa: The All-Powerful Atheismo: One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.

It's a review from somebody who's normally pretty mainstream (agrees with tomatometer 75% of the time), but that hasn't stopped 290 people already from posting and calling him a troll because he didn't like it.


Considering he gave a positive review to both Rock of Ages and The Dictator, I'm pretty certain he's just being a farking twat.
 
2012-07-16 02:04:15 PM  

Supes: Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

.

Batman doesn't kill his enemies he can beat them to a pulp though.
 
2012-07-16 02:04:43 PM  

Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.


The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.
 
2012-07-16 02:05:26 PM  
I'm so looking forward to this movie. The first two are brilliant sci-fi/crime stories and combined with the Batman, even better. This is like the original Star Wars trilogy for a new generation.

/Still have to wait another week. I'm seeing it with family, which means I've gotta wait until the 23rd to see it in IMAX with them.
 
2012-07-16 02:08:59 PM  

Supes: Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.


They already have that character. He's called The Punisher.

The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2012-07-16 02:09:14 PM  
Return of the Dark Knight
Jeff Bridges as Bruce Wayne
Ellen Paige as Robin
Directed by Darren Aaronofsky

THIS SHOULD BE MADE.
 
2012-07-16 02:10:35 PM  
I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)
 
2012-07-16 02:10:46 PM  
Well....I'm just plain out of ideas that don't suck. I know, let's make the same movie....only again.

Yeah! Let's take a movie that was already successful and MAKE IT AGAIN. It'll be the same thing! And we know that it'll be successful because it ALREADY was successful! Then we can poop out 1-2 sequels, sell some merchandise and then copy another movie!

Only....people might catch on and realize that we're re-releasing the same crap. Hmm....I know! Let's not call it 'Cheap copying of crap....let's call it 'Rebooting!'

It's absolutely retarded. And people line up to see it.

Batman is *literally* from the 40s.

The Joker was in the first 'Batman' comic in 1940.
Two face first appeared in.....the 40s.
Cat Woman first appeared in....the 40s.

Okay, now brace yourselves for this...Bane first appeared in....the 90s. 1993.

The newest character in the 'new' Batman movie is 19 years old.
 
2012-07-16 02:11:15 PM  

meat0918: Can they wait a decade or so?


10 years, no way. I am sure that after the success of the Avengers that Warner Brothers is just itching to put out a justice league movie. And with superman getting rebooted next year I am sure they will want a new batman that shares the same universe as the movie superman.

Honestly though my ideal dream is that (assuming Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon survive TDKR) is that they hire either David Simon or one of the writers from The Wire and make Gotham Central (but in the Nolan universe). Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.

Although I do wonder what kind of nerd outrage there would be if WB just said fark it, we own the damn thing and made a bunch more Batman movies basically in the Nolan batman universe with a new director and a new actor playing batman/bruce?
 
2012-07-16 02:11:30 PM  

kevinatilusa: The All-Powerful Atheismo: One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.

It's a review from somebody who's normally pretty mainstream (agrees with tomatometer 75% of the time), but that hasn't stopped 290 people already from posting and calling him a troll because he didn't like it.


Well the quote he chose was pretty stupid, so I don't know if I blame them.
 
2012-07-16 02:12:02 PM  
What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.


Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.
 
2012-07-16 02:16:28 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: kevinatilusa: The All-Powerful Atheismo: One negative review and it's NOT Armond White?

we're through the looking glass, people.

It's a review from somebody who's normally pretty mainstream (agrees with tomatometer 75% of the time), but that hasn't stopped 290 people already from posting and calling him a troll because he didn't like it.

Well the quote he chose was pretty stupid, so I don't know if I blame them.


Just checked, and he was also one of the few negative reviews on The Dark Knight also. He said "This movie is too in love with itself to make you love it."

WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

This man can safely be ignored.
 
2012-07-16 02:16:51 PM  

Supes: An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across.


Part of the Batman mythos is that, no matter how dark and brutal he gets, there is a line that he will never cross. The moment Bats kills someone, you have this guy:

images.wikia.com

Now, just because Bats won't kill you doesn't mean he won't save you either (see Batman Begins).
 
2012-07-16 02:18:06 PM  

Doogled: What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.


Where does your opinion of BB being better then TDK come from?

Specific examples if you could.
 
2012-07-16 02:18:30 PM  

mechgreg: Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.


That would be awesome. I'm in.
 
2012-07-16 02:18:44 PM  

sure haven't: Aside from that I have no idea what you're going for here.


Nobody cares.
 
2012-07-16 02:19:57 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: This movie is too in love with itself


I'd agree with that. Not trollin'

/still entertaining
//just not the "BEST EVERZ!!"
 
2012-07-16 02:21:09 PM  

Supes: Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.


What you describe is the Punisher-not Batman. One of the great things about Nolan was that he understood the concept that what makes Batman a hero was that he wasn't out for revenge.

It's one of the reasons I wasn't too big on the Burton films was Batman running around killing people.
 
2012-07-16 02:21:51 PM  

sniderman: Supes: An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across.

Part of the Batman mythos is that, no matter how dark and brutal he gets, there is a line that he will never cross. The moment Bats kills someone, you have this guy:



Now, just because Bats won't kill you doesn't mean he won't save you either (see Batman Begins).


I love how Azbats is an unabashed parody of everything wrong with comics in the 90s, right down to the gratuitous pouches. At least I HOPE they were going for parody.
 
2012-07-16 02:24:27 PM  

sure haven't: The All-Powerful Atheismo: This movie is too in love with itself

I'd agree with that. Not trollin'

/still entertaining
//just not the "BEST EVERZ!!"


That still doesn't mean anything.
 
2012-07-16 02:25:09 PM  

Erix: mechgreg: Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.

That would be awesome. I'm in.


I could also get on board with this. Eastwood actually reminds me of old-Wayne a lot, now that I think about it.
Who plays Terry, though?
 
2012-07-16 02:25:21 PM  

Wayne 985: The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.


Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.
 
2012-07-16 02:26:49 PM  
to all the people that think bruce wayne is going to get killed and a new batman rise -

no. the trailers have given it away.

when this film starts, batman is farking RETIRED.

he has to come back to combat bane.

thus - the dark knight rises.

no death, no one else putting on the mantle.
 
2012-07-16 02:28:07 PM  
I read a review earlier that contain some spoilers. This movie is going to be so farking epic.
 
2012-07-16 02:31:25 PM  

JokerMattly: Erix: mechgreg: Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.

That would be awesome. I'm in.

I could also get on board with this. Eastwood actually reminds me of old-Wayne a lot, now that I think about it.
Who plays Terry, though?


No one we know now, I hope. He's supposed to be in high school, and I'm getting tired of seeing 28 year olds trying to act like they're 17. 24 should be about the max age allowed for an actor trying to play that kind of a role. I'd be happy with a relatively unknown actor in the role.
 
2012-07-16 02:31:52 PM  

Gunther: There isn't really a need for ANY origin story - it's always the least interesting part of the superhero, yet it's the one we always get a movie focusing on.


I don't know about that. I felt the origin stories in the original Spiderman and Iron Man were better than the hero/villain portions.

In the case of Batman, however, I agree that an origin story would be redundant without a complete reinterpretation of the character (which just may happen). I think it's pretty clear that Nolan conceived this (at least at a basic leve) as a trilogy with a beginning, middle, and end. The key to continuing the series is going to be whether they decide to take that approach again or if they decide to just make movie after movie after movie, a la James Bond or Indiana Jones. If they decide the latter, they really should just drop Batman in as an already accepted piece of the story.
 
2012-07-16 02:33:57 PM  

buntz: I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)



I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.
 
2012-07-16 02:35:39 PM  
I'd like to see a fun reboot -- a modern take on the Adam West version. Give me colorful, over-the-top villains, and yes, Robin.

But no suit nipples.
 
2012-07-16 02:36:49 PM  

Erix: No one we know now, I hope. He's supposed to be in high school, and I'm getting tired of seeing 28 year olds trying to act like they're 17. 24 should be about the max age allowed for an actor trying to play that kind of a role. I'd be happy with a relatively unknown actor in the role.


As awful as I feel saying it out loud, Taylor Lautner reminds me a lot of Terry looks-wise.
Shame he is an awful actor.
 
2012-07-16 02:37:33 PM  

ShawnDoc: They can always point to the stupid magic microwave gun in the first one, and say "We may suck, but at least we aren't that stupid".


I hated that so much. The movie was in the realm of stretched plausibility until that point. But if you have a device that evaporates all water within a half mile radius, well, the human body is 70% water, so yeah.
 
2012-07-16 02:37:40 PM  
s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2012-07-16 02:39:18 PM  

Sybarite: buntz: I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)


I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.


It also kind of cheapens things a bit when Batman has to give everything he has to fight the Joker or stop Bane (speculation) when someone like Superman or The Green Lantern could handle those dudes so quickly that you wouldn't even see what happened. Seriously the only dude in Nolans batman universe with a superpower was the dude who had the super power of being able to survive having half his face blown off and being able to live with a face without skin or any bandages.

That said I guarantee WB wants a universe where Batman and Superman can meet.
 
2012-07-16 02:42:11 PM  

FreetardoRivera: anywho, this is easy

two words: batman beyond

you are welcome warner bros


www.forevergeek.com
 
2012-07-16 02:42:21 PM  
vincentpaone.files.wordpress.com

/biff
 
2012-07-16 02:44:40 PM  

Supes: Wayne 985: The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.


Actually, even the Golden Age Batman only killed as a last resort option. The majority of that time, the villain killed themselves. One of the earliest stories: Batman and the Monster Men-a whole truckload of super hulked out men were being sent to Gotham. Batman states: "Normally I hate taking human life, but I don't have any other choice."

Robin in his first story, kicked a man who was trying to kill him off of a construction site.

Still, by the 3rd year of Batman, the writers realized that Batman worked far better as a non killing hero...way before the Comic Code Authority
 
2012-07-16 02:44:49 PM  

mechgreg: Sybarite: buntz: I would just like a Batman movie that exists in a universe where other superheroes are possible (or even mentioned)


I prefer Nolan's version where neither other superheroes nor even comic book superheroes exist. The entire idea of Batman putting on the costume to turn himself into a symbol takes on a completely different tone in a world where people already have an idea in their head about superheroes and what they represent.

It also kind of cheapens things a bit when Batman has to give everything he has to fight the Joker or stop Bane (speculation) when someone like Superman or The Green Lantern could handle those dudes so quickly that you wouldn't even see what happened. Seriously the only dude in Nolans batman universe with a superpower was the dude who had the super power of being able to survive having half his face blown off and being able to live with a face without skin or any bandages.

That said I guarantee WB wants a universe where Batman and Superman can meet.


In some ways it does cheapen everything to have superman exist in any universe (even his own), but the comics make it work without batman being in a bubble I don't see why the movies couldn't as well.

When you think about it Lex Luthor as a villain makes no sense at all either why doesn't superman just slam dunk his face into the moon or something?
 
2012-07-16 02:49:29 PM  
They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest
 
2012-07-16 02:49:40 PM  
JerseyTim
Which is why they shouldn't reboot it. Just tell Batman stories. They don't even have to be connected or maintain continuity. At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.

We can only hope they follow this advice.
 
2012-07-16 02:49:45 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Doogled: What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.

Where does your opinion of BB being better then TDK come from?

Specific examples if you could.


I don't think I've actually watched either movie since I saw them in the theaters, but I'll do my best to give specific examples. Aside from the Ledger's performance not living up to the hype (Return of the Joker or Under the Red Hood have much, much better Jokers), the Dark Knight had a fair amount of scenes that really didn't add to the movie and caused me to roll my eyes enough that I was no longer "into" the movie. Specific examples include all the scenes involving the two ferries deciding whether or not to blow the other one up and Fox's objections to the tracking system. In fact, scenes like those felt like watching Sorkin's Newsroom in that Nolan continually beat you over the head with his point, and that's really distracting to me. I'd also argue that Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were just better versions of their comic book characters than the Joker and Two Face. Up until Crane was defeated by farking Rachel Dawes, Nolan did an amazing job displaying the hallucinogenic effects that Crane's drugs use. Aside from a few moments (sticking his head out of the window in the truck, the magic trick, and the opening sequence), the Joker really didn't feel like the Joker.

Anyways, again sorry I haven't watched the movies since they came out, but I tried to give some reasoning.
 
2012-07-16 02:51:18 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Batman states: "Normally I hate taking human life, but I don't have any other choice."


Unless it's Michael Keaton's Batman, in which case he gets some sadistic glee from it.
 
2012-07-16 02:55:38 PM  

Supes: ...
I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.


Don't we already have that? I've been playing Arkham City and Batman holds people over ledges and threatens to break their bones if he doesn't get information. In The Dark Knight, he drops Sal Maroni and breaks his leg or ankle.
 
2012-07-16 02:56:00 PM  
The best Batman movies:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman (1989)
3. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
4. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
5. Batman: Under the Red Hood

The worst:

1. Batman & Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman Returns
4. Batman (1966)
5. Batman & Robin again, because it's that bad.

YMMV of course, but Batman Begins ranks in the middle of all those, and the '89 Batman is endlessly quotable and campy in it's own way.
 
2012-07-16 02:58:45 PM  

mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest


except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,
 
2012-07-16 03:08:38 PM  

frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,


Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"
 
2012-07-16 03:09:26 PM  
I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.

Yeah. Get some dude with Down's Syndrome to play him.

And make it all REALLY dark -- darker than the Chris Nolan films. Retarded Batman would throw criminals off ledges, bash in the skulls of thugs, and destroy public property using his super retarded person strength (you know that retarded people have super human strength, right?)....

Retarded Batman would be a huge smash. Plus, it would empower all of those retarded folks out there who will actually be willing to pay money to see the next reboot.

Win-win!
 
2012-07-16 03:10:57 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Just checked, and he was also one of the few negative reviews on The Dark Knight also. He said "This movie is too in love with itself to make you love it."

WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN

This man can safely be ignored.


It insists upon itself.
 
2012-07-16 03:11:32 PM  

Doogled: Jim from Saint Paul: Doogled: What if the guy they hire can actually film a coherent fight scene?

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

Batman Begins is better than Dark Knight. Also, I'd argue that Red Hood had the best story of the movies, and John DiMaggio did a very good job with the Joker.

Where does your opinion of BB being better then TDK come from?

Specific examples if you could.

I don't think I've actually watched either movie since I saw them in the theaters, but I'll do my best to give specific examples. Aside from the Ledger's performance not living up to the hype (Return of the Joker or Under the Red Hood have much, much better Jokers), the Dark Knight had a fair amount of scenes that really didn't add to the movie and caused me to roll my eyes enough that I was no longer "into" the movie. Specific examples include all the scenes involving the two ferries deciding whether or not to blow the other one up and Fox's objections to the tracking system. In fact, scenes like those felt like watching Sorkin's Newsroom in that Nolan continually beat you over the head with his point, and that's really distracting to me. I'd also argue that Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were just better versions of their comic book characters than the Joker and Two Face. Up until Crane was defeated by farking Rachel Dawes, Nolan did an amazing job displaying the hallucinogenic effects that Crane's drugs use. Aside from a few moments (sticking his head out of the window in the truck, the magic trick, and the opening sequence), the Joker really didn't feel like the Joker.

Anyways, again sorry I haven't watched the movies since they came out, but I tried to give some reasoning.


It's cool. Just wnated to understand.

Personally, the Joker in the Red Hood and Return may have good voice acting, yet it is the SAME joker from B:TAS. The character isn't done differently, with the exception of actually having some real VIOLENCE from the Joker. Joker in the B:TAS world was creepy as hell, yet he still didn't do alot of stuff on screen like he did in those movies. He is basically the 60's batman with the creepiness turned to eleventy.

That doesn't cut it if you are trying to bring something different to the table. YMMV of course, I just don't see where they are night and day better then this Batman world's Joker. Ledger's Joker worked well for this interpretation of the world. The first 2 movies of this trilogy have had a grounded, believeable sense to them. They have enough reality to have us think "Hey this COULD happen" in the back of our minds, yet enough fantastical stuff to remind us it's a comic book movie. You can;t have B:TAS Joker and achieve that.

/and Scarecrow was, is and always has been pretty lame
 
2012-07-16 03:12:04 PM  

verbaltoxin: The best Batman movies:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman (1989)
3. Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
4. Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
5. Batman: Under the Red Hood

The worst:

1. Batman & Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman Returns
4. Batman (1966)
5. Batman & Robin again, because it's that bad.

YMMV of course, but Batman Begins ranks in the middle of all those, and the '89 Batman is endlessly quotable and campy in it's own way.


I can't believe I'm doing this, but... fine.

Best:
1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. BB: Return of the Joker
4. Mask of the Phantasm
5. Under the Red Hood

Worst:
1. Batman and Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman ('66)
4. Batman ('89)
5. Batman Returns
 
2012-07-16 03:13:13 PM  

cousin-merle: sure haven't: Aside from that I have no idea what you're going for here.

Nobody cares.


ah cool, glad someone got what I was going for. I admit it wasn't terribly clear. Doom has posted that "spoiler" in at least 2 threads today.
 
2012-07-16 03:14:49 PM  
 
2012-07-16 03:16:52 PM  

doczoidberg: I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.

Yeah. Get some dude with Down's Syndrome to play him.

And make it all REALLY dark -- darker than the Chris Nolan films. Retarded Batman would throw criminals off ledges, bash in the skulls of thugs, and destroy public property using his super retarded person strength (you know that retarded people have super human strength, right?)....

Retarded Batman would be a huge smash. Plus, it would empower all of those retarded folks out there who will actually be willing to pay money to see the next reboot.

Win-win!


"The Tard Knight Counts to Potato".
 
2012-07-16 03:17:21 PM  

unlikely: And since the goddamn SAG has made that illegal in Hollywood, you're screwed.


I'm not in the business, so I'm genuinely curious what you mean by this.
 
2012-07-16 03:17:53 PM  

Wayne 985: Worst:
1. Batman and Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman ('66)
4. Batman ('89)
5. Batman Returns


I watched part of 89 batman on TV last week and it really doesn't hold up. The effects are bad, the sets look totally fake on my HDTV, Jack Nicholson is chewing the scenery really badly and Burton doesn't seem to understand that the Joker isn't just a mob boss with face paint or that Batman shouldn't have machine guns and bombs on The Batmobile. The only thing I thought that really worked was Keaton's performance.
 
2012-07-16 03:18:31 PM  
Hopefully when they reboot it they hire someone who remembers he's making a movie about comic book superheroes, not angsty emo sad sacks. DC should stick to animated movies, it's what they do best.
 
2012-07-16 03:19:42 PM  

doczoidberg: I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.


Already done.
 
2012-07-16 03:21:11 PM  

Gunther: JerseyTim: At this point, we really don't need an origin story. We get who the character is.

There isn't really a need for ANY origin story - it's always the least interesting part of the superhero, yet it's the one we always get a movie focusing on.

Would Indiana Jones be a better film series if the first one had him studying archaeology, learning how to fight Nazis with a whip and buying a fedora?


This! Did not want a James T. Kirk origin story. It's like the Shepard Book origin story. What turd that was. Leave something to the viewers imagination.
 
2012-07-16 03:22:29 PM  

frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,


I find it hard to believe that fans didn't enjoy Star Trek 2009 but then again I'm responding to someone who didn't enjoy Star Trek 6. It wasn't exactly a masterpiece of cinema but it was a damn sight better than and doesn't deserve to be worse in ranking than Star trek 5.
 
2012-07-16 03:23:45 PM  
The Avengers is kid stuff compared with this meditation on mortal loss and heroic frailty. For once a melodrama with pulp origins convinces viewers that it can be the modern equivalent to Greek myths or a Jonathan Swift satire. TDKR is that big, that bitter - a film of grand ambitions and epic achievement. The most eagerly anticipated movie of summer 2012 was worth waiting for.


That's a pretty glowing review.
 
2012-07-16 03:26:18 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: doczoidberg: I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.

Already done.


This is better
 
2012-07-16 03:28:14 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"


Oh good I can do this too:

Best Star Trek Films:

1. Wrath of Kahn
2. Voyage Home (We have no budget therefore HUMOR godamnit)
3. Undiscovered Country
4. First Contact
5. 2009

Worst:

1. Star Trek: Generations is the stupides movie ever made.
2. Star Trek 5 (When you have *1* good line in the whole movie then shame on you)
3. Nemesis (Also obligatory review)

The rest are Meh to Good. Even Insurrection (if you ignore the gaping plot holes, terrible writing and bad directing goofs) comes off as an overlong episode of the series, which I can handle.
 
2012-07-16 03:30:25 PM  
Oh and if you don't like Star Trek 6 you can turn in your fanboy card.

No I mean it. Hand it over. Shame on you.

*sticks out hand*
 
2012-07-16 03:30:36 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: doczoidberg: I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.

Already done.


That was...awesome.
 
2012-07-16 03:31:35 PM  

doczoidberg: Jim from Saint Paul: doczoidberg: I've got a GREAT idea:
Retarded Batman.

Already done.

That was...awesome.


YTMND has it's moments dude.
 
2012-07-16 03:35:40 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"


of course you can ignore my opinions. but they are for the most part accurate and reflect the tastes of the movie going public as well. say what you will and yes this isn't be all end all, but rotten tomatoes has pretty accurate reviews for the films.

the new one has the highest rating of ALL the trek films.

meh.

/life long trekkie here that can admit most of the movies stink on ice.
 
2012-07-16 03:40:40 PM  

mechgreg: Wayne 985: Worst:
1. Batman and Robin
2. Batman Forever
3. Batman ('66)
4. Batman ('89)
5. Batman Returns

I watched part of 89 batman on TV last week and it really doesn't hold up. The effects are bad, the sets look totally fake on my HDTV, Jack Nicholson is chewing the scenery really badly and Burton doesn't seem to understand that the Joker isn't just a mob boss with face paint or that Batman shouldn't have machine guns and bombs on The Batmobile. The only thing I thought that really worked was Keaton's performance.


Yeah. Batman Returns isn't *great*, but I still enjoy it because it's self-aware. Burton not only got Batman wrong in the first one, but he took him far too seriously and two-dimensionally.
 
2012-07-16 03:41:16 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: I created this alt just for this thread: frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"

Oh good I can do this too:

Best Star Trek Films:

1. Wrath of Kahn
2. Voyage Home (We have no budget therefore HUMOR godamnit)
3. Undiscovered Country
4. First Contact
5. 2009

Worst:

1. Star Trek: Generations is the stupides movie ever made.
2. Star Trek 5 (When you have *1* good line in the whole movie then shame on you)
3. Nemesis (Also obligatory review)

Th ...


i didnt really rate them in order of best to last, just my personal chronological feelings on the films. Also, "Trek 4 now with whales yo" is one of my favorite movies, right along side Superman 3. Yes both get a little silly but they are fun movies. Wrath of Kahn is my favorite trek film, of course, but the reboot is a better film when viewed objectively (which is hard for trekkies to do).

As I said, truth be told, all opinions aside, the 2009 Trek film is a better film than those that came before. It is better reviewed and remains consistently watchable.
 
2012-07-16 03:41:29 PM  

frepnog: the new one has the highest rating of ALL the trek films.


And made the most money.

If I wanted to see young attractive people doing cool exciting things, I'd go watch sports.

/Oblig for every thread hating ST 2009
//Oh sure a few of you aren't covered by the video and just don't like the movie
///the majority of you however...
 
2012-07-16 03:51:45 PM  

devilEther: cousin-merle: sure haven't: Aside from that I have no idea what you're going for here.

Nobody cares.

ah cool, glad someone got what I was going for. I admit it wasn't terribly clear. Doom has posted that "spoiler" in at least 2 threads today.


Ahhhhhh I get it now.
Apologies for my 'hilarious' post.
 
2012-07-16 03:52:17 PM  

frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)


Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

Other than that? biatch on, good sir,
 
2012-07-16 03:58:02 PM  

Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

Other than that? biatch on, good sir,


except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds? THE GODDAMN ROCKET DIDN'T farkING WARP TO THE STAR. the scene sucks, dude. you can't really seriously defend it.

oh, and the enterprise crashed BEFORE the whole star going out scene, since they show the crashed enterprise destroyed in the explosion.

I would wager that the entirety of Star Wars Episode 2 is better than that scene. AND THAT MOVIE BLOWS.
 
2012-07-16 04:01:49 PM  

Madbassist1: "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.


Yes.

A. ROCKET. BLEW. UP. A. STAR.

That defies the logic of every SCi-fi series I have ever watched. I am not saying that it's not possible in different fandoms. It simply makes ZERO sense in Star Trek land.
 
2012-07-16 04:01:54 PM  

frepnog: Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

Other than that? biatch on, good sir,

except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds? THE GODDAMN ROCKET DIDN'T farkING WARP TO THE STAR. the scene sucks, dude. you can't really seriously defend it.

oh, and the enterprise crashed BEFORE the whole star going out scene, since they show the crashed enterprise destroyed in the explosion.

I would wager that the entirety of Star Wars Episode 2 is better than that scene. AND THAT MOVIE BLOWS.


Generations is by far the best of the Trek movies for the sole reason that Kirk dies in it.
 
2012-07-16 04:06:12 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: I'm sick of Batman Spiderman/XMen movies.

 
2012-07-16 04:11:43 PM  

Jumpin Jbot: Hmm, 96% on RT and it's definitely going to be a box office smash.

Better find out what Farkers think about it first.


When these anomalies happen I just come here to sort 'em out.
 
2012-07-16 04:12:44 PM  

Smelly McUgly: I'm looking forward to the eventual reboot even though it can never be as good as I want it to be because Kevin Conroy is The One True Batman to me.

I'd love to see a GOOD movie with the Riddler though.


I'd like to see the Riddler be more "Saw"-ish. Kind of like what they did with the Joker. It would have had to be part of this arc though.
 
2012-07-16 04:14:36 PM  

mechgreg: meat0918: Can they wait a decade or so?

10 years, no way. I am sure that after the success of the Avengers that Warner Brothers is just itching to put out a justice league movie. And with superman getting rebooted next year I am sure they will want a new batman that shares the same universe as the movie superman.

Honestly though my ideal dream is that (assuming Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordon survive TDKR) is that they hire either David Simon or one of the writers from The Wire and make Gotham Central (but in the Nolan universe). Then wait a year or two and hire Clint Eastwood to direct Batman Beyond and also play crotchety old Bruce Wayne.

Although I do wonder what kind of nerd outrage there would be if WB just said fark it, we own the damn thing and made a bunch more Batman movies basically in the Nolan batman universe with a new director and a new actor playing batman/bruce?


Avengers farked them though with the Thanos teaser.

Who will the Justice League fight? Darkseid? Please.

Could they pull off a Justice League Vs. The Legion of Doom? Perhaps.
 
2012-07-16 04:17:34 PM  

frepnog: Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

Other than that? biatch on, good sir,

except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds? THE GODDAMN ROCKET DIDN'T farkING WARP TO THE STAR. the scene sucks, dude. you can't really seriously defend it.

oh, and the enterprise crashed BEFORE the whole star going out scene, since they show the crashed enterprise destroyed in the explosion.

I would wager that the entirety of Star Wars Episode 2 is better than that scene. AND THAT MOVIE BLOWS.


But Data swears!
 
2012-07-16 04:18:53 PM  
The comments under Marshall Fine's rotten review are comedy gold.
 
2012-07-16 04:23:08 PM  

Bullseyed: Smelly McUgly: I'm looking forward to the eventual reboot even though it can never be as good as I want it to be because Kevin Conroy is The One True Batman to me.

I'd love to see a GOOD movie with the Riddler though.

I'd like to see the Riddler be more "Saw"-ish. Kind of like what they did with the Joker. It would have had to be part of this arc though.


If nolan wanted to do the riddler, I always thought he would have had to basically be the serial killer character from Seven. Not trying to cause total chaos like the Joker does, just trying to fark people up and murder who he doesn't like for whatever crazy reason on an individual basis. That could have been super creepy.
 
2012-07-16 04:43:12 PM  

Splinshints: The comments under Marshall Fine's rotten review are comedy gold.


I was just reading through some of them.

This is the critic rottentomatoes deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll flame him. Because he can take it.

LOL

They've also managed to knock his website offline.
 
2012-07-16 04:46:01 PM  

Madbassist1: The Avengers is kid stuff compared with this meditation on mortal loss and heroic frailty. For once a melodrama with pulp origins convinces viewers that it can be the modern equivalent to Greek myths or a Jonathan Swift satire. TDKR is that big, that bitter - a film of grand ambitions and epic achievement. The most eagerly anticipated movie of summer 2012 was worth waiting for.


That's a pretty glowing review.


That review is kind of spoiler-laden.
 
2012-07-16 04:52:10 PM  
www.tomopop.com

Batman, America Loves Pudding

Brought to you by the High Fructose Corn Syrup Lobby
 
2012-07-16 05:00:22 PM  
i486.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-16 05:02:56 PM  
Huh. Looks like this might be the only movie this year to come close to the Avengers. The previews haven't looked very good to me (but I loved the Dark Knight and Begins). I think it has to do with Bane and the Goatse on his face.
 
2012-07-16 05:04:45 PM  

frepnog: except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds?


Jim from Saint Paul: A. ROCKET. BLEW. UP. A. STAR.


Um...boys boys...we must learn to read more carefully. I anticipated....ANTICIPATED the geek butthurt sure to come from you on this...

My initial post (with relevant commentary bolded)

Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.


So what occurs before then...well, who farking cares, I wasnt talking about that.

Now...continue to biatch....thank you.
 
2012-07-16 05:20:47 PM  
Okay. Bear with me on this one:

Dick Grayson.

Instead of a new series of movies focusing on reinventing Bruce Wayne, Warner Bros. should do one that focuses more on Dick Grayson, with Batman/Bruce Wayne in a mentoring role (i.e. Obi-Wan Kenobi, with a touch of Mr. Miyagi). There hasn't been much focus on Grayson in the movies, but he IS an awesome, established character in his own right in the comics and cartoons. There's plenty of back-story and material that most people aren't familiar with that would be fresh and new, in their eyes.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they made it a trilogy. The first part would be an origin on Grayson; "Robin Begins", basically. You'd have the death of his parents, his adoption by Bruce Wayne, building up to him becoming Robin to avenge their deaths alongside Batman as a "one-shot" deal. It's an angle that hasn't been approached much outside of the comics (or, in the case of the Schumacher films, competently. >_>), and could show sides to the characters that many people aren't familiar with.

The second part would have Dick grow up and shed his role as Robin, sidekick/protege of the Batman, and become Nightwing, a hero in his own right, trying to co-exist in Gotham alongside his mentor as an equal . Batman finds that he misses having a sidekick, that he doesn't feel complete without a Robin, and brings Jason Todd and/or Tim Drake into the mix, the end result being Dick/Nightwing leaving Gotham for another city (Bludhaven). If they used Jason, they could go down that infamous path from "A Death in the Family", and have Dick return to Gotham to try and keep Batman from going too far and cross the line from "justice" to "revenge".

For the third, and final, part, Bruce Wayne "dies". Dick returns to Gotham to fight on in his mentor's stead, with hangups occurring by the presence of Bruce's former partner(s) (i.e., Jason Todd as the Red Hood, Tim Drake convinced Bruce is still alive, Batgirl, Damien Wayne, etc.). Ultimately, Dick decides that Gotham (to say nothing of his fellow extended members of the Wayne "family") needs a Batman, and Dick Grayson becomes the new Batman to round thing out.

I know this post got a bit long, but I really think it's an idea that could work and should, at least, be explored by Warner Bros. when deciding where next to go following The Dark Knight Rises.
 
2012-07-16 05:43:32 PM  

Captain Steroid: Okay. Bear with me on this one:

Dick Grayson.

....

An adaption of Dark Victory to film would be great. It's by far the best Robin-origin story out there. Though honestly beyond that I'm not sure I'd like seeing Robin, after the way Chris O'Donnell and Schumacher just ruined the character.
 
2012-07-16 05:53:21 PM  
The 'Man of Steel' trailer is attached to TDKR, so that's an added bonus. I've seen a bootleg copy and it's really farking epic and awesome. Can't wait to see it on the big screen.
 
2012-07-16 05:57:03 PM  
Do a Planetary/Batman: Night On Earth film, panel for panel. Have the last batman be Bale in the Batman Begins suit. Tada, waffle.
 
2012-07-16 06:12:32 PM  

Supes: Captain Steroid: Okay. Bear with me on this one:

Dick Grayson.

....

An adaption of Dark Victory to film would be great. It's by far the best Robin-origin story out there. Though honestly beyond that I'm not sure I'd like seeing Robin, after the way Chris O'Donnell and Schumacher just ruined the character.


Granted, it would be an uphill climb, but I think there's a way to do it. Not hiring Joel Schumacher in any capacity would certainly help, though. :P
 
2012-07-16 06:17:24 PM  
It's becoming terribly difficult for me to maintain my patience of not having seen this film yet.

I WANT TO GIVE THEM MY DAMN MONEY ALREADY!!

/Mister Wayne.
 
2012-07-16 06:42:26 PM  

Doogled: I'd also argue that Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul were just better versions of their comic book characters than the Joker and Two Face.


farking Scarecrow, are you kidding me? Cillian Murphy's portrayal of him has made me not want to see Cillian in ANY movie. Worst part of "InTime" as well.
 
2012-07-16 06:43:36 PM  

Gunther: Would Indiana Jones be a better film series if the first one had him studying archaeology, learning how to fight Nazis with a whip and buying a fedora?


Well, its wasn't the first movie, but it was all covered in the trilogy. Watch the Holy Grail first and you've got your origin story.
 
2012-07-16 07:17:28 PM  

meat0918: Can they wait a decade or so?


Make it 20 years, and you've got a deal.

Reboots suck, Hollywood. Leave it alone after this one.
 
2012-07-16 07:33:16 PM  

kukukupo: Huh. Looks like this might be the only movie this year to come close to the Avengers. The previews haven't looked very good to me (but I loved the Dark Knight and Begins). I think it has to do with Bane and the Goatse on his face.


No offense, but the Internet has warped your perception. The mask was supposedly inspired by a baboon's snarl, but all you see is some dude's gaping asshole.
 
2012-07-16 08:11:06 PM  
I think they should do a darker, totally farked in the head self-loathing Batman who doesn't kill his opponents because he actually finds the idea of killing sexually arousing, and that drives him to push it right up to the edge without quite reaching climax ... when he beats them within a hair's breadth of death, it's his checking whether he's totally crossed the line-as long as he doesn't get off at he end he still considers himself sane. He just trains relentlessly in order to go out there night after night, tempting fate, teasing himself while hate/loving it ... knowing that the time he goes too far and comes is the night he ends it all.

Also, Robin!

/bat-blueballs
 
2012-07-16 08:40:21 PM  
So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.
 
2012-07-16 08:45:35 PM  
I'd like to see an adaptation of Frank Miller's the Dark Knight Returns. As a bonus, it might serve as a starting point for a Superman reboot too.
 
2012-07-16 08:47:21 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: frepnog: mjohnson71: They waited about 20 years between Adam West "Batman" and Michael Keaton "Batman" (at least live-action wise.) That sounds about right.

/And Star Trek should have been given 10 years or so to rest

except that the 2009 movie kicked much ass, and other than Khan is arguably the best of the Trek motion pictures.

1 - sucks.
2 - good, but dated. Ricardo chews much scenery.
3 - just terrible. don't try to defend it. it farking sucks.
4 - watchable, fun, but hardly much of a trek film. (WE HAVE NO BUDGET THEREFORE 80's)
5 - dear god.
6 - oh dear god.
generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)
first contact - seemed ok until you watch it now. ruins the borg, and every single scene on earth sucks. also, useless black actress.

let's not talk about those last two TNG films.

and then 2009 Star Trek. Great effects. Great story. Great characters fully nailed by young enthusiastic actors. Awesome. Makes the other films on the whole look terrible. yes, lensflare and all, but it really isn't nearly as noticeable as fark makes out. I saw the film in theaters day of release and didnt notice until fark,

Considering that The Undiscovered Country and First Contact were two of the top three of the pre-2009 Star Trek movies, I think it's safe to say that we can completely ignore your opinions entirely. You're a bad person for not liking the same things I like and you should feel bad.

/Also, you didn't notice the lens flare? Seriously? Even my (then) 6 year-old son noticed it. "Dad, why are all the lights on the ship so sparkly?"


Sorry, but I'm in complete agreement with Frepnog. Hated how campy and weird all those old Star Trek movies were, even First Contact is horrible by today's standards, but the 2009 movie hooked me into the franchise.
 
2012-07-16 08:49:20 PM  

bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.


THIS.

I could give a f*ck about RotJoker or the others. Why don't we compare Ewoks: Caravan of Courage to Empire Strikes Back while we're at it?
 
2012-07-16 08:51:07 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Just checked, and he was also one of the few negative reviews on The Dark Knight also. He said "This movie is too in love with itself to make you love it."


It insists upon itself?
 
2012-07-16 09:19:24 PM  
Just get JJ Abrams to "re-imagine" it.

Bruce Wayne's parents don't die; just get an Indian Rug Burn from mugger. Bruce becomes only slightly emo crimefighter instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: HEDGEHOG MAN!!!

When crime rears its ugly head, Hedgehog Man rises to meet the challenge...

... sees his shadow, and another six weeks of crime spree is upon us.
 
2012-07-16 09:22:50 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Just get JJ Abrams to "re-imagine" it.

Bruce Wayne's parents don't die; just get an Indian Rug Burn from mugger. Bruce becomes only slightly emo crimefighter instead.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: HEDGEHOG MAN!!!

When crime rears its ugly head, Hedgehog Man rises to meet the challenge...

... sees his shadow, and another six weeks of crime spree is upon us.


If there ever was a script tailor-made for Joel Schumacher's return,this is it.
 
2012-07-16 09:35:17 PM  

bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.


You sir are an idiot.
 
2012-07-16 09:39:07 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

//oblig, since people are f*cking white knighting Mask of the Phantasm over this.
 
2012-07-16 09:41:48 PM  

ronin7: bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.

You sir are an idiot.


Dude, it's like an opinion, man.
 
2012-07-16 10:11:04 PM  

ronin7: bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.

You sir are an idiot.


Because, despite Batman being my favorite superhero, I don't have time to watch and compare every animated work or comic book that comes out concerning him? Yeah, I guess. But um, none of the voice actors was ever asked to physically portray the Joker. So, its comparing apples and oranges. And kind of dumb. Like, movie fans don't argue whether De Niro or Brando played Vito Corleone better. And if they do, they're missing the goddamn point.

Also, is nerd cred that important that, because our favorite franchises are becoming mainstream, we have to create more obscure stuff to fetishize and argue over?
 
2012-07-16 10:34:07 PM  

bglove25: Because, despite Batman being my favorite superhero, I don't have time to watch and compare every animated work or comic book that comes out concerning him? Yeah, I guess. But um, none of the voice actors was ever asked to physically portray the Joker.


Regardless of not "physiclally portraying him," Mark Hamill is a damn good Joker. And Kevin Conroy frankly the best Batman.
 
2012-07-16 10:48:19 PM  

coeyagi: ronin7: bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.

You sir are an idiot.

Dude, it's like an opinion, man.


Agrees Abides:
www.pegasusnews.com
 
2012-07-16 10:49:39 PM  
There is simply no disputing that the best Joker of all-time was Boner, from Growing Pains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j7d3lIAkes

RIP.
 
2012-07-16 10:52:58 PM  

Supes: bglove25: Because, despite Batman being my favorite superhero, I don't have time to watch and compare every animated work or comic book that comes out concerning him? Yeah, I guess. But um, none of the voice actors was ever asked to physically portray the Joker.

Regardless of not "physiclally portraying him," Mark Hamill is a damn good Joker. And Kevin Conroy frankly the best Batman.


Heck, that might be so. I sure enjoyed the Animated Series growing up. But to me, they are different mediums. Interesting to compare and contrast but impossible to say one is "better" or "best." It's like comparing baseball stats from different eras of the game.
 
2012-07-17 12:04:01 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.


For humoring me, I submit the best death for the "original" Joker
 
2012-07-17 12:09:53 AM  

Supes: Wayne 985: The entire purpose of Batman is to save lives and avoid killing. Batman is great because he's a dark malcontent who is also more noble than any of the "Boy Scout" heroes. He's the perfect combination.

Your idea is bad and you should feel bad.

Batman originally had no problems killing his enemies. It stopped around the introduction of Robin and trying to slant the comic towards younger readers, and was reinforced by the Comics Code Authority. By the time the CCA lost its importance, the "no killing" had become a part of the Batman mythos already... and oddly regardless Batman still has shown the willingness to kill in certain rare circumstances (and he keeps files out to kill all his fellow superheroes!).

I'll tweak it though to make people happy. A darker, grittier Batman. He doesn't kill, but has no problem torturing (psychologically or physically) to get information he needs.


Let alternate universe Batman be a killer
 
2012-07-17 12:12:33 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Supes: Tannhauser: I also vote for a less gritty Batman. No origins! Unless it's not Batman. I'd kinda like to see him teach Robin how to beat up bad guys, just don't go full Schumacher.

Never go full Schumacher.

See I'd love to go in the opposite direction. An even darker Batman, couched in realism, a guy with severe emotional/mental problems and has no problem killing to get his point across. R-rated movie of course.

Let Superman be the noble hero. Batman's a different sort of character.

What you describe is the Punisher-not Batman. One of the great things about Nolan was that he understood the concept that what makes Batman a hero was that he wasn't out for revenge.

It's one of the reasons I wasn't too big on the Burton films was Batman running around killing people.


It seemed awesome to me growing up, as I was a Marvel kid. Looking back, yes, it just didn't seem right. Still was a pretty good movie. And a great antidote to '60s Batman.
 
2012-07-17 12:19:12 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Batman is *literally* from the 40s.

The Joker was in the first 'Batman' comic in 1940.
Two face first appeared in.....the 40s.
Cat Woman first appeared in....the 40s.

Okay, now brace yourselves for this...Bane first appeared in....the 90s. 1993.

The newest character in the 'new' Batman movie is 19 years old.


This is actually a really good point. Hell, every superhero franchise falls into this trap. New Spider-Man is still in love with Gwen Stacy or Mary Jane Watson. Superman has Lois Lane. Iron Man has to fight Whiplash.

But I have to wonder, how well would these movies be accepted if they blazed a new trail for the character, instead of using established characters from the pre-existing lore?

Look at how many threads we've had on TDKR, before any details were out. How many discussions were had over which villain should be the new rival for Batman? Would it be Bane or the Riddler or someone different? I remember markedly few suggestions that maybe Batman could take on a new enemy, someone who didn't exist in a previous continuity. And when we did get a new character on the roster - John Blake - there was plenty of speculation as to what role he would fill. Would he be a parallel to Dick Grayson, maybe Nightwing or Azrael? Would he be the Joker hiding in plain sight?

I can't help but wonder if, when confronted with a character with a massive backstory across several media, we find it more comforting to be presented with characters we know and expect. Otherwise, maybe it feels more like the studio is using the name of a known character to sell a new plot. I said something similar about "G.I. Joe" when it came out. I didn't think it was very good, but I thought maybe it could have been better if it were just a random action film by any name, instead of trying to force a few characters into the G.I. Joe mold.

Similarly, imagine if TDK were released with Batman fighting some new villain. Would there have been an epic outcry asking where the Joker was, or whatever happened to the Riddler? Is it only because we expect those characters as part of a complete story arc? Would we be more accepting if the movies were coming one by one, more like Bond flicks, as mentioned upthread?
 
2012-07-17 12:32:35 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: t's cool. Just wnated to understand.

Personally, the Joker in the Red Hood and Return may have good voice acting, yet it is the SAME joker from B:TAS. The character isn't done differently, with the exception of actually having some real VIOLENCE from the Joker. Joker in the B:TAS world was creepy as hell, yet he still didn't do alot of stuff on screen like he did in those movies. He is basically the 60's batman with the creepiness turned to eleventy.

That doesn't cut it if you are trying to bring something different to the table. YMMV of course, I just don't see where they are night and day better then this Batman world's Joker. Ledger's Joker worked well for this interpretation of the world. The first 2 movies of this trilogy have had a grounded, believeable sense to them. They have enough reality to have us think "Hey this COULD happen" in the back of our minds, yet enough fantastical stuff to remind us it's a comic book movie. You can;t have B:TAS Joker and achieve that.

/and Scarecrow was, is and always has been pretty lame


I vote BTW, that TAS Joker is the greatest for an unfair reason: he's a Joker for all seasons. Over an entire series we got to see light and dark. We got to see many aspects of Hamill as Joker, to the point that many people can seize on their favorite interpretation. As testament to that fact, let me post my common post, where a Hamill imitator makes Ledger sound like a rank amateur: great closing
 
2012-07-17 12:36:39 AM  

Supes: bglove25: Because, despite Batman being my favorite superhero, I don't have time to watch and compare every animated work or comic book that comes out concerning him? Yeah, I guess. But um, none of the voice actors was ever asked to physically portray the Joker.

Regardless of not "physiclally portraying him," Mark Hamill is a damn good Joker. And Kevin Conroy frankly the best Batman.


Let's have a show of hands here, who here reads the comics with the voices of EVERYONE from Batman:TAS in their heads?

AND YES, I liked the live action stuff.
 
2012-07-17 01:00:55 AM  

Fano: Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

For humoring me, I submit the best death for the "original" Joker


The best death was Arkham City.

"That actually is pretty funny."
 
2012-07-17 01:25:11 AM  
I hit this thread way late and it's probably already dead like the original Batman, but I just wanted to throw in my weight in favor of a rotoscoped film. Get a bunch of no-name, pretty faced actors to act out the roles, but get all the old Batman: TAS voice actors to voice over everything. Hamil. Conroy. Get the original Harley, too.

Don't make the next Batman an emo like Bales played him. Don't make him a joke like Clooney played him. Just let Batman be Batman, cleaning up the streets.
 
2012-07-17 01:30:25 AM  

Wayne 985: Fano: Jim from Saint Paul: Fano: Can't beat mask of the phantasm and return of the joker, but we've watched idiots blow billions trying.

The Dark Knight belongs right up there.

/my favorite is still BB: RotJ.

For humoring me, I submit the best death for the "original" Joker

The best death was Arkham City.

"That actually is pretty funny."


Gotta love Batman laughing at the Joker
 
2012-07-17 01:35:19 AM  

HotWingAgenda: I hit this thread way late and it's probably already dead like the original Batman, but I just wanted to throw in my weight in favor of a rotoscoped film. Get a bunch of no-name, pretty faced actors to act out the roles, but get all the old Batman: TAS voice actors to voice over everything. Hamil. Conroy. Get the original Harley, too.

Don't make the next Batman an emo like Bales played him. Don't make him a joke like Clooney played him. Just let Batman be Batman, cleaning up the streets.


www.exposay.com
I love Sorkin, but I'm willing to budge for this
 
2012-07-17 01:38:04 AM  

bglove25: So, just a thought. When comparing Batman movies, can we stick to the one that AREN'T farkING ANIMATED? Like, I get they exist and all, but they don't get wide movie releases. They made 8 thousand land before time movies too, but only the first one counts. Comparing Heath Ledger to animated characters might be the dumbest thing I can think of.


Mask of the Phantasm actually got a pretty wide theatrical release back during the holiday season of 1993. I took my little brother to see it Christmas Day.
 
2012-07-17 01:55:20 AM  
Please DC/Warner
1.bp.blogspot.com

And

media.comicvine.com
 
2012-07-17 02:00:15 AM  

Fano: I love Sorkin, but I'm willing to budge for this


Agreed. And Kristen Bell as Catwoman.


idesigniphone.net

/oh so hot
 
2012-07-17 07:29:28 AM  
Actually, if folks want to see a darker Batman, let's go the Elseworlds route with "Speeding Bullets:"

upload.wikimedia.org

Kal-el is found instead by childless Martha and Thomas Wayne. Little Bruce sees his parents murdered in Crime Alley, and his powers then manifest. Scratch one shooter via heat vision.

Batman's dark vigilante outlook and penchant for terrorizing the wicked combined with all of Superman's powers. If you think Bats is intimidating with gadgets and athleticism, you should see him with flight, super strength, speed, heat vision, hearing, sight, x-ray vision, etc. It's a great read.
 
2012-07-17 09:15:06 AM  
Anne Hathaway is the best thing in this tediously overlong, disappointing final chapter of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.

- Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile
 
2012-07-17 10:16:16 AM  

Madbassist1: frepnog: except that he shot a farking bottle rocket at a farking STAR and it got there in what, 3-4 seconds?

Jim from Saint Paul: A. ROCKET. BLEW. UP. A. STAR.

Um...boys boys...we must learn to read more carefully. I anticipated....ANTICIPATED the geek butthurt sure to come from you on this...

My initial post (with relevant commentary bolded)

Madbassist1: frepnog: generations - a lousy cop out with one good scene (crashing the enterprise)

Although I disagree with several of your statements, none get my gall more than this one. Crashing the Enterprise is awesome, if for no other reason than to see the scale of the ship, but I dare say sir that the crash was only part of the larger scene which could be called "The extinguishing of the sun of Veridian III" or something like that. Starting when the rocket ignites in the star, clear until the end of the crash is one of the most breathtaking scenes in history. A farking STAR going out...as viewed from its planet. Scary shiat.

So what occurs before then...well, who farking cares, I wasnt talking about that.

Now...continue to biatch....thank you.


I understnad your point. I am not complainging about your chronology of events sir.

MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.
 
2012-07-17 11:08:10 AM  

Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.


So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.
 
2012-07-17 12:31:54 PM  

Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.


Well, you actually watch it launch like a bottle rocket, so yeah. Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:14 PM  

Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.


lol

Hey, I just want shows to follow their own rules (whatever they may be). I am unaware of the anything in Star Trek that allows for what they did.
 
2012-07-17 01:32:32 PM  

Fano: Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.


That depends...did the aircraft carrier drive off the road and roll down a ravine first?
 
2012-07-17 02:07:34 PM  

Fano: Teufelaffe: Jim from Saint Paul: MY problem is that a ROCKET BLOWS UP A STAR. So Star Trek land really has the technology to launch something INTO A STAR that will not only not disintegrate before it reaches any vital part of the star, it will protect whatever material is IN said rocket that CAN goof up a star until preciscely the right time?

Citation frickin needed.

So, a travelling space "anomaly" that transports those who enter it their Happy Place®, time travel, and teleportation of sentient beings without harming them are all just fine, but a rocket blowing up a star is just too unrealistic?

Huh. You're weird.

Well, you actually watch it launch like a bottle rocket, so yeah. Sort of like accepting real magic, and being skeptical when a guy shoots a 9mm at an aircraft carrier from 100 miles away and it explodes instantly.


the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

i have no problems with the aliens in trek, with warp, with geordie's visor, with Q, or anything that seems in place in the unvierse no matter what it was.

a bottle rocket blowing up a star was pants on head retarded.
 
2012-07-17 02:23:07 PM  

frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??


Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.
 
2012-07-17 02:47:29 PM  

Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.


if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.

t0.gstatic.com

EARF. Make me CARE that a planet is about it bite the big one.
 
2012-07-17 02:47:38 PM  

devilEther: Anne Hathaway is the best thing in this tediously overlong, disappointing final chapter of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy.

- Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile


i6.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-17 02:57:25 PM  

Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.


Q ='s other dimensional pony being.

Play by your own rules. This whole rocket thing doesn't. I would go into more detail why, yet I am not sure you'd care. Like at all. It's not the only thing that's dumb about the movie, it's just the one I'm talking about too.

/why go baci in time to when Soren can launch the rocket?!
//GO BACK TO WHEN THEY MEET HIM ON THE ETNERRPRISE, PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE, END MOVIE ROLL CREDITS
///I thought this before Red Letter Media pointed it out, I swear
 
2012-07-17 03:07:32 PM  

Jim from Saint Paul: /why go baci in time to when Soren can launch the rocket?!
//GO BACK TO WHEN THEY MEET HIM ON THE ETNERRPRISE, PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE, END MOVIE ROLL CREDITS
///I thought this before Red Letter Media pointed it out, I swear


I thought that in the theater while watching the movie the first time. :)


frepnog: if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.


I don't think they explain it in the movie, I was just offering an explanation that fits within the "rules" of the Star Trek universe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really defending the movie. I thought it was a pretty shiatty tbh. I'm just surprised sometimes when I encounter some people's "breaking point" for suspension of disbelief. Like a guy I worked with who didn't like Total Recall because "going to Mars was just too unrealistic." Three-breasted hookers, mutants, memory manipulation, Schwarzenegger's acting...those were all perfectly acceptable, but actually travelling to Mars? That was just too much for him.
 
2012-07-17 03:08:02 PM  

frepnog: Teufelaffe: frepnog: the star would have destroyed the rocket long before the rocket got close enough to the star to actually harm it. what the fark was that rocket made of, unobtanium or something??

Or, it could have had shielding to protect it from the star long enough to deliver whatever payload would cause the star to go nova. IIRC correctly, there's been at least one instance of a ship in the ST universe flying into a star and surviving.

Seriously, if you have no issues with other aspects of the Star Trek universe (especially Q, ffs) then you should have no problem whatsoever accepting the concept that the rocket was at least temporarily protected from destruction by the star in some way that fits the lore.

if it was explained in the movie and i just don't recall, fine. i can accept it.

as it is, as I recall, no mention was made as to what exactly was going on with that bottle rocket. so it stunk up the scene.

/still think the movie on the whole sucks. one simple change would have changed my feelings - place Soren on EARF about to blow up EARF's sun to get back in the ribbon.

[t0.gstatic.com image 299x168]

EARF. Make me CARE that a planet is about it bite the big one.


Warp 1 = speed of light, right? How does a rocket with no warp capability get from planet to sun in 11 seconds? Because PLOT ADVANCEMENT THAT'S WHY.

Generations sucked.
 
Displayed 176 of 176 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report