Imagist Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I'd rather not have Catwoman again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I just don't want Catwoman in the third movie period I have said it before and I'll say it again the only villain that the third movie will work with is The Riddler as a sort of detective-antithesis to Batman especially since I think the most underrepresented thing in this film series is that Batman is a detective, not just a guy in a suit who beats up people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgeCrusher Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Catwoman is always a weak link for Batman. I hate the character in every version presented, comic, cartoon, or movie wise. So yeah, doesn't need to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCvgluvr Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 I heard Angelina Jolie was going to be Catwoman or something like that. I thought that was a great idea. I'd like to be in that one. Ha ha ha NO! I hope Nolan has better sense than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NNY Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Hey you want creepy Riddler? Call in Marilyn Manson. I shall provide pictures later that it worked in the new 'The Batman' animated series. Robert Englund of Freddie Kruger fame provided the voice for him too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urban Xperience Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 I did read somewhere that Johnny Depp is in line to play the Riddler in the next installment. Can't be bothered to find the link... http://www.hollywood.com/news/Johnny_Depp_to_Play_The_Riddler/5283266 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Nobody is in line to play anyone in anything. They don't even know if there's going to be a third installment yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 On the upside, TDK still has a chance at besting Titanic in box office draw. How? Rerelease. While there are no current plans to do so, the studio hasn't ruled out a yearly run of the movie in theaters as an "event" every year or so. IMAX Filmed Entertainment chief Greg Foster tells The Hollywood Reporter that there is “a real possibility” of an IMAX rerelease in future years. Robert Zemeckis’ The Polar Express 3-D has been rereleased in IMAX theaters every holiday season, resulting in a four year total of $70 million. “Ultimately, it’s a decision that Warner Bros. has to make, Foster says, adding: “We’d certainly support that.” That's how Star Wars took the #2 spot. It had fallen out of the top 5 (maybe even top 10, I can't remember) until the "special edition" releases in the mid 90s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketSniper Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 My biggest problem was the movie was the boat scene, I really wish they'd given both boats the detonators to their own explosives, then the citizen boat would be the only one to go down. None of this feel-goody toss the explosives out the window crap... In any case, very good movie. Liked it more the more I watched it, and by the third time (My family's poor at coordinating going to movies >_<), it's going to be one of the few movies I own, next to Boondock Saints and Donnie Darko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCvgluvr Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Did Titanic make all it's money with rereleases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 The Dark Knight is one of the best movies I've ever seen in the 2000 era. It was a great new movie amongst a bunch of terrible horror movies and whatnot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penfold Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 The Dark Knight is one of the best movies I've ever seen in the 2000 era. It was a great new movie amongst a bunch of terrible horror movies and whatnot. I really liked it as well, especially given the amazing portayal of the Joker. Honestly, though, it certainly wasn't "one of the best" in my opinion, particularly because of the poor quality of the larger-scale action sequences. I look forward to when this "shaky cam" fad is done away with, since IMO it's seldom a legitimate convention and almost always just a crutch in shooting action. I will say, though, they didn't use it to quite as horrible an effect in this as they did in Transformers, and all-in-all the positives of this movie more than outweighed the negatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cottus and Gyes Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I look forward to when this "shaky cam" fad is done away with, since IMO it's seldom a legitimate convention and almost always just a crutch in shooting action. I agree. That is why I love 300, it went back to the stand-still/panning action sequences. I hate the Bourne trilogy because the "intense action" gives me "intense nausea". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nohbody Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I agree. That is why I love 300, it went back to the stand-still/panning action sequences. I hate the Bourne trilogy because the "intense action" gives me "intense nausea". Oh my god shaky cam was such a colossal fail. Once I noticed in the Bourne Ultimatum that the camera never stopped moving, it consumed my attention the entire movie. It wobbled slightly during even the dialogue. Not to mention they could have slipped in a massive orgy in the background of one of the intense action scenes and it would have went unnoticed, thanks to the camera man being drunk and masturbating while tripping on ecstasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penfold Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 I agree. That is why I love 300, it went back to the stand-still/panning action sequences. I hate the Bourne trilogy because the "intense action" gives me "intense nausea". I totally agree! It's funny, those are the exact examples I give whenever I go on my "action needs to be dynamic!" rant, haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I really liked it as well, especially given the amazing portayal of the Joker. Honestly, though, it certainly wasn't "one of the best" in my opinion, particularly because of the poor quality of the larger-scale action sequences. I look forward to when this "shaky cam" fad is done away with, since IMO it's seldom a legitimate convention and almost always just a crutch in shooting action. I will say, though, they didn't use it to quite as horrible an effect in this as they did in Transformers, and all-in-all the positives of this movie more than outweighed the negatives. The Joker was portrayed in an entirely new and original way, which was one of the coolest things about the movie. I also agree about the shaky cam fad thing. It's much worse in some other movies though. Ever seen The Bourne Ultimatum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Oh my god shaky cam was such a colossal fail. Once I noticed in the Bourne Ultimatum that the camera never stopped moving, it consumed my attention the entire movie. It wobbled slightly during even the dialogue. Not to mention they could have slipped in a massive orgy in the background of one of the intense action scenes and it would have went unnoticed, thanks to the camera man being drunk and masturbating while tripping on ecstasy. Lol only Bourne movie I've seen was Ultimatum and it was the most shaky thing ever. Got on my nerves bad >_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triad Orion Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 My biggest problem was the movie was the boat scene, I really wish they'd given both boats the detonators to their own explosives, then the citizen boat would be the only one to go down. None of this feel-goody toss the explosives out the window crap...In any case, very good movie. Liked it more the more I watched it, and by the third time (My family's poor at coordinating going to movies >_<), it's going to be one of the few movies I own, next to Boondock Saints and Donnie Darko. Well, in reality, it IS entirely possible that the Joker gave them the detonators for their own boats. In fact, I think that's exactly what he did; it's just no one pulled the trigger. I'm actually glad they *didn't* detonate either of the boats because it may have pushed an already dark movie over the edge. That being said, I'm not a fan of shaky-cam or quick-cutaways (Anything Michael Bay related) in fight scenes either. A little bit of it here and there might serve to spice up the action, but by overdoing it, everything becomes cluttered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Author Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The Joker was portrayed in an entirely new and original way, which was one of the coolest things about the movie. For movies maybe. The joker is a psychopathic creep who kills on a whim. He's always been twisted, funny, dark and freaking smart. I mean, it was even seen in the Justice League episode where he plants bomb all around Vegas. He outsmarted the league, and came close to winning, and he planted bombs ALL OVER VEGAS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekofrog Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I am a shaky-cam hater, but quite honestly I've seen the movie 3 times and still don't see the shaky-cam argument. Not once did I get lost during an action scene -- I thought it was all quite clear what was happening and who it was happening to. Even the club brawl where Batman is going after the interim mafia headguy, with its strobe lights and techno music, was easily discernible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleck Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The shaky cam problem is one of those things that people think they're smart for commenting on, even if it's not there. In all seriousness, the only recent movie that has had a problem with that was Transformers, and in that film it made sense because there were giant fucking robots blowing up shit everywhere. You don't really get a chance to stand perfectly still and watch something when a car is throwing another car at a building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I think there's some shaky cam aspect there. But again, I think the action was simply too dark to really see WTF was actually going on at times. Batman Begins had the same exact problem. Nolan really isn't an action movie director by nature anyway. Both his Batman movies were far more about the psychological and political implications of Batman than him being a superhero. That's why we saw so few of pure Batman scenes compared to scenes of other people and Joker causing mayhem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuketheXjesse Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I think there's some shaky cam aspect there. But again, I think the action was simply too dark to really see WTF was actually going on at times. Batman Begins had the same exact problem. Nolan really isn't an action movie director by nature anyway. Both his Batman movies were far more about the psychological and political implications of Batman than him being a superhero. That's why we saw so few of pure Batman scenes compared to scenes of other people and Joker causing mayhem. But that was one of the cool aspects of the movie. I liked that a lot! It made the movie so much more interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Author Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Buys, the movie about BATMAN, a guy who fights criminals at NIGHT, using FEAR as his weapon was too DARK. It was hard to see in the DARK. Also, the SONAR that allowed us to see more in the DARK was TOO MUCH. I hate things that are TRENDY or POPULAR because I'm HOT SHIT or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhiJayy Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 the only recent movie that has had a problem with that was Transformers, and in that film it made sense because there were giant fucking robots blowing up shit everywhere. You don't really get a chance to stand perfectly still and watch something when a car is throwing another car at a building. Ha ha. ok I agree with that. No one stands perfectly still when something as huge as a car is tossed in the air. However I still couldn't tell what was happening in some of the fight scenes, which I am still disappointed about. P.S: Nice sig dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.