Iron man vs The Dark Knight thoughts

[ray245]

Never said it had to be the sequel there sport.

Yes, but the point still stands. Why do we have to leave the option to bring the joker back open?

*sigh*

Because Fanboy believes the character is strong enough that with a competent actor to be used again. It is not that hard to follow where his logic leads. There is no need at all, just a desire based upon personal thoughts.

Except that it cheapens the events that happened in the Dark Knight. Having the Joker escaping from Prison or avoiding the death penalty will only cheapen the movie.

[Ghost Rider]

*sigh*

Because Fanboy believes the character is strong enough that with a competent actor to be used again. It is not that hard to follow where his logic leads. There is no need at all, just a desire based upon personal thoughts.

Except that it cheapens the events that happened in the Dark Knight. Having the Joker escaping from Prison or avoiding the death penalty will only cheapen the movie.

...which you and he happen to disagree upon. Behold! People can have different opinions!

Now if you want to have some discourse, you have to demonstrate that it cheapens it beyond just your supposition. But that is between the two of you.

[Darth Fanboy]

Except that it cheapens the events that happened in the Dark Knight. Having the Joker escaping from Prison or avoiding the death penalty will only cheapen the movie.

I hear that the Joker has made multiple appearances in various Batman comics, and is a character of at least above average popularity.

[ray245]

Except that it cheapens the events that happened in the Dark Knight. Having the Joker escaping from Prison or avoiding the death penalty will only cheapen the movie.

I hear that the Joker has made multiple appearances in various Batman comics, and is a character of at least above average popularity.

Yes, at the same time, all it does is to show how ineffective Batman is in the comics. He has been trying to reduce crime rates for years, and he and the justice system of Gotham cannot even ensure that the Joker is no longer a threat to the public.

If Joker manages to escape in the TDK-verse again, even after the police realise how dangerous he can be and the kind of security measures they need to put in place, it will be hard for me to suspend my disbelief.

What is the point of creating a storyline arc if there is going to be no conclusion and the villain will never be defeated? Even if the Joker is captured for a second time, how would I know if the efforts put in is even worth it?

Just because Joker is popular is not a good reason why we need to have a story with the Joker rising to power once again in the same universe.

Perhaps if someone is going to make a stand-alone movie that isn't connected to the universe created by Nolan, I don't mind him using the Joker as the main character. However, depicting the Joker in another Nolan-verse movie will just drag the series with no end in sight, and defeats the point of the series, which is about the journey of Bruce Wayne.

[Rye]

Shut it, Ray. Seriously. There's no plot or anything that you're talking about, so second-guessing it and declaring it TDK-ruining when there's no hints Nolan is even doing another Batman is so premature you should really just remain silent.

[Darth Fanboy]

Yes, at the same time, all it does is to show how ineffective Batman is in the comics. He has been trying to reduce crime rates for years, and he and the justice system of Gotham cannot even ensure that the Joker is no longer a threat to the public.

So then you must dislike any superhero with a recurring villain, which would be...just about all of them!

If Joker manages to escape in the TDK-verse again, even after the police realise how dangerous he can be and the kind of security measures they need to put in place, it will be hard for me to suspend my disbelief.

Boo fucking hoo. Nobody gives a shit about your suspension of disbelief. If a good movie can come out of it the movie studio would be fucking stupid not to try and make millions off of another film, provided it could be accomplished. MAybe the studio execs for movie franchises should call you personally to consult on these films?

What is the point of creating a storyline arc if there is going to be no conclusion and the villain will never be defeated? Even if the Joker is captured for a second time, how would I know if the efforts put in is even worth it?

Supposedly there are reoccuring villains in lots of different franchises.

Just because Joker is popular is not a good reason why we need to have a story with the Joker rising to power once again in the same universe.

It's actually a damn good reason if it is going to make a few hundred million dollars.

Perhaps if someone is going to make a stand-alone movie that isn't connected to the universe created by Nolan, I don't mind him using the Joker as the main character. However, depicting the Joker in another Nolan-verse movie will just drag the series with no end in sight, and defeats the point of the series, which is about the journey of Bruce Wayne.

Oh yeah because when I go to a Batman movie I want to watch Bruce Wayne sans suit dealing with the tragedies and conflicts in his personal life.

[Darth Fanboy]

And if I am reading this thread correctly then there is only going to be one more Batman film in this series. Which means it will be years down the line before anything else comes up, and it would probably be part of a different Batman series altogether. Don't know if that is a bad thing or not, but, ah well.

[Ghost Rider]

Nolan finally revealed he just wanted a trilogy. Beforehand, none was said and the presumption of it was that he would only do another movie that he felt was as good as Dark Knight.

Now with a presumed ending, this is different because it gives more reasoning that he wants Bats to have something solid either in legacy or what he does to Gotham.

[Vendetta]

Perhaps if someone is going to make a stand-alone movie that isn't connected to the universe created by Nolan, I don't mind him using the Joker as the main character. However, depicting the Joker in another Nolan-verse movie will just drag the series with no end in sight, and defeats the point of the series, which is about the journey of Bruce Wayne.

Oh yeah because when I go to a Batman movie I want to watch Bruce Wayne sans suit dealing with the tragedies and conflicts in his personal life.

Bruce Wayne dealing with the tragedies and conflicts of his personal life IS Batman. Some people go for expensive therapy, he puts on a lot of black rubber and engages in nonconsensual sadomasochism with street punks and other weirdoes.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Nolan finally revealed he just wanted a trilogy. Beforehand, none was said and the presumption of it was that he would only do another movie that he felt was as good as Dark Knight.

Now with a presumed ending, this is different because it gives more reasoning that he wants Bats to have something solid either in legacy or what he does to Gotham.

So theoretically the next Nolan BatMan movie will be the last?
Not sure how I feel about it. On the one hand would hope for more, on the other hand more then three could run it into the ground like the last Batman series.
Also aren't their rumors floating around that The Penguin and Riddler are next movie Villains?

[Rye]

No, there is speculation that they could work, that's not a rumour.

The Riddler definitely could, especially if he were modelled after the Se7en killer or something.

[Crossroads Inc.]

No, there is speculation that they could work, that's not a rumour.

The Riddler definitely could, especially if he were modelled after the Se7en killer or something.

Thats basically what I heard, the "Riddler" is brought in as a Agent to profile and follow Batman and then gets a bit crazy about it, while the Penguin was supposed to be a new Mobster who comes in and takes over the Gothem mobs since the last leader got the whack from Twoface.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The only comment there's been about villains is that Freeze WON'T be in Batman 3.

[Havok]

The only comment there's been about villains is that Freeze WON'T be in Batman 3.

Ironically, Freeze is the only villain that I liked from the Schumacher films and I think, the only one they used correctly and got right.

[Iosef Cross]

That Batman and Robin movie? That was the worst superhero movie I ever saw.

In my opinion, the best superhero movies made in the last 10 years are SM 1 and 2, and the Batman movies.

Iron man 1 was good. But not on the same level of these ones.

[Darth Fanboy]

Bruce Wayne dealing with the tragedies and conflicts of his personal life IS Batman. Some people go for expensive therapy, he puts on a lot of black rubber and engages in nonconsensual sadomasochism with street punks and other weirdoes.

And I would hope that what you described makes it on screen more than Bruce Wayne moping around agonizing over his dead ex girlfriend.

[Havok]

That Batman and Robin movie? That was the worst superhero movie I ever saw.

That doesn't mean they didn't get Freeze right. Unfortunately he was in a movie that was purposely going for the lighthearted campiness of the TV show, so ...y'know... that's what we got.

In my opinion, the best superhero movies made in the last 10 years are SM 1 and 2, and the Batman movies.

Iron man 1 was good. But not on the same level of these ones.

OK, I gotta hear this... why wasn't Iron Man on the same level?

[Darth Fanboy]

Would someone like Black Mask be a better villain? Taking over the mob with a farmore ruthless and deadly bent than the previous mob bosses. Maybe inspired by the Joker's ability to apply violence but at the same time having a far more focused and dedicated agenda towards taking over the city. They could even alter Roman Sionis so that he could be an aspiring Mayoral candidate (alluding to Batman returns where Penguin did something similar).

[Batman]

Heck if there WERE such a movie as 'Batman and Robin' Mr Freeze would have been pretty much the only thing they DID get right.

[Iosef Cross]

That Batman and Robin movie? That was the worst superhero movie I ever saw.

That doesn't mean they didn't get Freeze right. Unfortunately he was in a movie that was purposely going for the lighthearted campiness of the TV show, so ...y'know... that's what we got.

Yeah.

In my opinion, the best superhero movies made in the last 10 years are SM 1 and 2, and the Batman movies.

Iron man 1 was good. But not on the same level of these ones.

OK, I gotta hear this... why wasn't Iron Man on the same level?

Well, it was a 8 movie. The Spider Man movies left a stronger impression on me thought (but when spider man 1 came, I was only 13, so I was more impressed by superhero movies). What the iron man movies have that compare to this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NLgY6f60CA, ?

The Batman movies are "stronger", more memorable movies as well.

[Stofsk]

I didn't like SM1 or 2. The SM films have horrible casting, horrible acting (which is a related though subtly different issue) and horrible writing. There was also horrible design or artistic decisions (like GG wearing power armour for fuck's sake, or Doc Ock deciding to not wear a shirt for half the bloody film). Iron Man in every way kicks the shit out of the Spider-man films.

[The Romulan Republic]

The only comment there's been about villains is that Freeze WON'T be in Batman 3.

Also, Two Face is out.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=126350

[Darth Fanboy]

I would have thought his death already did that.

[Batman]

I would have thought his death already did that.

It SHOULD, especially given the 'realistic as can be' angle of the Nolan movies. But we ARE talking superhero movies here, where even HAVING seen the dead body is not always enough.

[Whiplash]

I didn't like SM1 or 2. The SM films have horrible casting, horrible acting (which is a related though subtly different issue) and horrible writing. There was also horrible design or artistic decisions (like GG wearing power armour for fuck's sake, or Doc Ock deciding to not wear a shirt for half the bloody film). Iron Man in every way kicks the shit out of the Spider-man films.

I'll agree with you somewhat about the first one. Too campy at times (not overall) for my tastes. Some of the lines were just awful "its you who's out, out of your mind" Spiderman actually says to Gobby. Spiderman 2 was a huge improvement, not without its issues, but a huge improvement.

The reason why the Spiderman and Batman films are better than Iron Man 1 (don't even get me started on what was wrong with 2) is because they contain a substance that Iron Man never even attempted to have. Yes, I know Iron Man doesn't need all that, but that's what made the first one an enjoyable movie, but not necessarily a good one. Iron Man 2 was just 2 hours of jokes and fighting strung together by a very thin plot. Even though I didn't like Spiderman 1, I still have give it some praise.

Also to throw my opinion in on the Bats3 situation, it would be really easy (and smart) of them to give the Joker the Scarecrow treatment.

I would have thought his death already did that.

It SHOULD, especially given the 'realistic as can be' angle of the Nolan movies. But we ARE talking superhero movies here, where even HAVING seen the dead body is not always enough.

In what superhero movies has seeing the dead body not been enough? Either you're high or I'm drawing the biggest blank ever.