|
Post by DBrennan3333 on Jan 19, 2006 0:04:15 GMT -5
The consensus here for Joker seems to be Crispin Glover first and Johnny Depp second. I feel that neither one could pull it off. Crispin Glover doesn't seem dangerous or intelligent to me, he just seems like a pretentious moron. (I'm a bit bias against him because I've seen his notorious Letterman appearance circa 1985 where he made such a fool of himself they had to prematurely cut to a commercial break. I think it's at IFilm.com.)
And Depp I just think is too famous. He'd seem garish in this world, IMO.
Making the Joker believable in the 'Batman Begins' world that they construced in the first movie is going to take a lot of creativity and a lot of delicacy. I think that if the Joker seems either stupid or too outrageous, the entire world will collapse beneath the weight of it. I'd go with an actor who seems intelligent but also edgy.
My choices for Joker are: 1) Rufus Sewell ('Dark City,' 'A Knight's Tale') 2) Paul Bettany ('A Beautiful Mind,' 'Wimbledon')
And again, I feel strongly that casting Crispin Glover would be a mistake, perhaps a fatal one. He might work as Joker in some contexts (maybe if 'Batman Begins' was built with the same sensibility as Jeph Loeb's Batman world, which it absolutely was not), but it just wouldn't work in this realistic and gritty environment.
|
|
|
Post by arkhaminmate on Jan 19, 2006 16:53:07 GMT -5
The consensus here for Joker seems to be Crispin Glover first and Johnny Depp second. I feel that neither one could pull it off. Crispin Glover doesn't seem dangerous or intelligent to me, he just seems like a pretentious moron. (I'm a bit bias against him because I've seen his notorious Letterman appearance circa 1985 where he made such a fool of himself they had to prematurely cut to a commercial break. I think it's at IFilm.com.) And Depp I just think is too famous. He'd seem garish in this world, IMO. Making the Joker believable in the 'Batman Begins' world that they construced in the first movie is going to take a lot of creativity and a lot of delicacy. I think that if the Joker seems either stupid or too outrageous, the entire world will collapse beneath the weight of it. I'd go with an actor who seems intelligent but also edgy. My choices for Joker are: 1) Rufus Sewell ('Dark City,' 'A Knight's Tale') 2) Paul Bettany ('A Beautiful Mind,' 'Wimbledon') And again, I feel strongly that casting Crispin Glover would be a mistake, perhaps a fatal one. He might work as Joker in some contexts (maybe if 'Batman Begins' was built with the same sensibility as Jeph Loeb's Batman world, which it absolutely was not), but it just wouldn't work in this realistic and gritty environment. Interesting statement dbrendan. Well I understand that you are against Crispin Glover, but have you seen the film Willard? That qualified that he had the chops for The Joker & or The Scarecrow. Everyone has there own opinion & I respect yours, but I highly suggest you see Willard to see what we are talking about. Johnny Depp is one of those chameleon-like actors who falls into the roles he plays, never to emerge from them in his films. Now, this can also be said of Gary Oldman. & Jeph Loeb's Batman world. LOL. Several sections of Begins is taken from Long Halloween, IE Bats & Flasks: "Swear to me!" If you've seen the special fetures on the DVD, Nolan & Uslan say clearly it is based (at least elements, & elements of the plot) on the works of Jeph Loeb. No offense, but do allittle research next time
|
|
|
Post by jasontodd2 on Jan 19, 2006 17:21:18 GMT -5
Another movie that Crispin Glover was in and took on a serious role (was in the movie for about 15-20 minutes) was Deadman starring Johnny Depp, great film!
But Willard is a great movie to see him take on that type of role we want to see him as with The Joker. A poor me, but if you tick me off enough I will snap, and I think you need that type of skill or acting ability to take on The Joker and Crispin has that going for him
|
|
|
Post by Batrez on Jan 19, 2006 22:17:06 GMT -5
actually talia is mediterrtian decent..so actresses like penelope, or a unknown actress from the middle east should fit the bill. Im sure alot of actresses can do it...but u gotta have that look. Ras, is a immortal..it doesnt says his background is but his name means demons head in arabic I think.
|
|
|
Post by DBrennan3333 on Jan 20, 2006 2:05:14 GMT -5
Interesting statement dbrendan. Well I understand that you are against Crispin Glover, but have you seen the film Willard? That qualified that he had the chops for The Joker & or The Scarecrow. Everyone has there own opinion & I respect yours, but I highly suggest you see Willard to see what we are talking about. Johnny Depp is one of those chameleon-like actors who falls into the roles he plays, never to emerge from them in his films. Now, this can also be said of Gary Oldman. & Jeph Loeb's Batman world. LOL. Several sections of Begins is taken from Long Halloween, IE Bats & Flasks: "Swear to me!" If you've seen the special fetures on the DVD, Nolan & Uslan say clearly it is based (at least elements, & elements of the plot) on the works of Jeph Loeb. No offense, but do allittle research next time From the published screenplay to Batman Begins. QUESTION: What specific comic book resources were used for the film? CHRISTOPHER NOLAN: " The Man Who Falls....suggested the idea of travelling around the world, meeting criminals, and flirting with the criminal life. It had a great feel to it. That was very important. Then, looking at the middle act....it draws a lot from Batman: Year One, with Bruce Wayne becoming Batman.... Then, with all the stuff in between, we were free to figure out what we wanted to do." Score:Realistic Denny O'Neil Batman - 2 Outrageous Jeph Loeb Batman - 0 Sorry, chief. The 'Hush' Batman was wildly over the top (numerous women had the same abilities as Batman - can you imagine Christopher Nolan having Catwoman and Huntress hanging out on rooftops with Batman? - Killer Croc looking like a talking komodo dragon, Poison Ivy having mind control powers, etc., etc., etc.) If a librarian were to catalog Jeph Loeb's Batman, it wouldn't be in the fantasy section of fiction, not the mystery or adventure. It's much more akin to 'Lord of the Rings' then to 'Batman Begins.' (Yes, I know that David Goyer cited 'The Long Halloween' as a resource (but never writer/director Christopher Nolan). They might've cherry-picked some meaningless lines or details from that, but the spirit was 180-degrees the opposite. As for the Crispin Glover thing, no, I've not seen 'Willard,' although I did see the preview before I saw 'Daredevil.' I totally understand how you guys could think he would work. As I said, in more fantastical versions, Loeb-ish takes on Batman, I'm sure Crispin Glover would be fine (although the entire time he was on screen I'd be having flashbacks to him wearing 5-inch heels and trying to karate-kick David Letterman, which would sort of get in the way of that suspension of disbelief thing). It's just that in THIS interpretation of Batman, I don't think he'd fit. He might be able to, I just don't think so.
|
|
Krell
Gotham Tourist
Posts: 2
|
Post by Krell on Jan 21, 2006 17:56:10 GMT -5
Conan O´Brien could be nice to see as Joker. He is supertall guy, he has the same form of body and he wouldn´t even need a wig! Would be enough if he just dyed the hair
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 21, 2006 18:12:24 GMT -5
^ No offense, but I'd like to see an actor play the Joker.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Jan 21, 2006 18:38:01 GMT -5
o_0 Conan OBrien? You'd need some tonic with that or at least a good wig (he needs more hair)...and who knows if he can act, he could give it a shot...? No offense either, an opinion is an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Jan 21, 2006 18:39:08 GMT -5
Welcome btw Krell, hope you enjoy it here
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 21, 2006 18:42:38 GMT -5
^ No offense, but I'd like to see an actor play the Joker. Yeah. Conan's a funny guy, but I just don't see him as a crazed psycho.
|
|
|
Post by reideen1313 on Jan 24, 2006 10:25:14 GMT -5
Several sections of Begins is taken from Long Halloween, IE Bats & Flasks: "Swear to me!" If you've seen the special fetures on the DVD, Nolan & Uslan say clearly it is based (at least elements, & elements of the plot) on the works of Jeph Loeb. No offense, but do allittle research next time From the published screenplay to Batman Begins. QUESTION: What specific comic book resources were used for the film? CHRISTOPHER NOLAN: " The Man Who Falls....suggested the idea of travelling around the world, meeting criminals, and flirting with the criminal life. It had a great feel to it. That was very important. Then, looking at the middle act....it draws a lot from Batman: Year One, with Bruce Wayne becoming Batman.... Then, with all the stuff in between, we were free to figure out what we wanted to do." Score:Realistic Denny O'Neil Batman - 2 Outrageous Jeph Loeb Batman - 0 Sorry, chief. Nothing to be sorry about. Both O'Neil and Loeb helped to shape Begins. Whether Nolan mentions it or not, DC paid royalties to both, based on their ideas being used. Money talks (at least to me) more than Nolan's quote does. Here is the first 'rumor' of the payments. This 'rumor' was later confirmed at both CBR and Newsarama. IIRC, O'Neil himself confirmed that he was paid for his input as well. Hush isn't the only arc where Catwoman and Huntress have had similar abilities to Batman. They're similar - just not up to the same level as Bats - there is a difference though. That's a Jim Lee issue - not a Loeb issue, unless I missed Loeb's art credit on that book somewhere.... Which has been part of her history as well - prior to Hush. Sounds like your beef with Hush isn't so much with Loeb, but with the fact that the characters weren't depicted as they appeared in BTAS. Just a suggestion - read a bit more of the history of these characters. Maybe you'll appreciate Hush just little more then. Why? Please explain. See my earlier point. And you're perfectly entitled to your opinion. Just keep in mind, that's your opinion and it may not be the same as others here. Play nice.
|
|
|
Post by reideen1313 on Jan 24, 2006 10:26:44 GMT -5
Conan O´Brien could be nice to see as Joker. He is supertall guy, he has the same form of body and he wouldn´t even need a wig! Would be enough if he just dyed the hair I never even thought of Conan! As much as I love him, I'd be afraid that he wouldn't be able to pull off something serious.
|
|
|
Post by gotham95 on Jan 24, 2006 13:05:34 GMT -5
From the published screenplay to Batman Begins. QUESTION: What specific comic book resources were used for the film? CHRISTOPHER NOLAN: " The Man Who Falls....suggested the idea of travelling around the world, meeting criminals, and flirting with the criminal life. It had a great feel to it. That was very important. Then, looking at the middle act....it draws a lot from Batman: Year One, with Bruce Wayne becoming Batman.... Then, with all the stuff in between, we were free to figure out what we wanted to do." Score:Realistic Denny O'Neil Batman - 2 Outrageous Jeph Loeb Batman - 0 But Long Halloween was modeled. Just look in the Batman Begins DVD Deluxe Edition Comic Book. It has a story from TLH in it. The 'Hush' Batman was wildly over the top (numerous women had the same abilities as Batman - can you imagine Christopher Nolan having Catwoman and Huntress hanging out on rooftops with Batman? - Killer Croc looking like a talking komodo dragon, Poison Ivy having mind control powers, etc., etc., etc.) For me Hush resparked my ethusiasm in the Batman comic that had been missing for some time. It brought me back to being a kid again when I would anxiously await the next issue. The suspense and mystery had me on the edge of my seat each month wanting more. I have very little problems if any with Hush and think it's one of the best Batman stories ever. (In fact TLH and Hush are my two favorite). The only problem I can think of is that it lasted for only 12 issues instead of more. Yes I could see Nolan doing that. I can see Beckinsale (Catwoman I wish) with Bale on the rooftop. If a librarian were to catalog Jeph Loeb's Batman, it wouldn't be in the fantasy section of fiction, not the mystery or adventure. It's much more akin to 'Lord of the Rings' then to 'Batman Begins.' Actually I don't think it be on the shelf because it would always be checked out. ;D
|
|
|
Post by gotham95 on Jan 24, 2006 13:08:16 GMT -5
My choices for Joker are: 1) Rufus Sewell ('Dark City,' 'A Knight's Tale') 2) Paul Bettany ('A Beautiful Mind,' 'Wimbledon') Good choice with Sewell, but Bettany would have to convince me.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 24, 2006 17:38:39 GMT -5
^ I can more easily see Bettany than Sewell as Joker. I have seen a deleted clip from Gangster No. 1 in which Bettany sadistically tortures a man, jokes around, and then throws the poor guy out the window. Bettany's expressions and lines as well as the love song in the background make the scene almost comical, but at the same time you're disgusted by what he's doing. As for Sewell, I think the best role for him would be Harvey Dent. If not, then Black Mask.
Defend Loeb all you want, but what DBrennan's basically trying to say is that Jeph Loeb's comics don't have as much influence on Nolan as we may think. There are moments lifted right out of it, but DBrennan has interpreted (based on evidence from Nolan himself) Nolan's world has to being so nitty gritty realistic that elements from Loeb's work (i.e. Killer Croc, Solomon Grundy) would not work in such a world. Brennan's not trying to bash Loeb's comics; he's just pointing out that Loeb's world and Nolan's world, based on what we've seen of Nolan's world, don't interrelate. Here's a hypothetical situation: Burton may have lifted a scene right out of a '70s comic book for Batman Returns, but that wouldn't point to Batman in Returns being the same character as the Batman in the '70s.
While I am not entirely sure if the hardcore realism approach would be beneficial in the long run (I personally am in favor of more comic book elements in the sequels), Begins has shown to ignore the extreme fantasy elements in favor of more realistic situations.
The rest...he will have to explain on his own.
|
|
|
Post by reideen1313 on Jan 24, 2006 18:16:50 GMT -5
Nolan's world has to being so nitty gritty realistic that elements from Loeb's work (i.e. Killer Croc, Solomon Grundy) would not work in such a world. But a guy dressed as a Bat would? And another guy that can live for thousands of years and another one who has a 'fear toxin' so he can experiment on the criminally insane?? C'mon - it's a comic movie. Those characters can be put in there if the correct writer wants them to be there.... Maybe Nolan just isn't up to the task. (Personally, Begins left me a little flat. I thought Sin City was the best of the comic book movies last year, followed by Fantastic Four and then Begins - but that's just me.) They are the same character. Regardless of the 'source material' that the script is 'based on' it's all about Batman. It's all fantasy. I don't care how realistic Nolan or any other writer/director/producer wants it to be - it's still a comic book movie.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 24, 2006 18:44:36 GMT -5
First off, I said that I agree about the fantasy elements being a part of the mythos. Your arguments are similar to ones that I have made myself. The issue here is that I can't see it happening as much as I'd like to. Maybe the sequel will show more fantasy elements. But a guy dressed as a Bat would? And another guy that can live for thousands of years and another one who has a 'fear toxin' so he can experiment on the criminally insane?? There's no evidence that Ra's has lived for thousands of years, despite what's in the comic. Personally, I love to infer the "We sacked Rome, etc." as Ra's being with the League of Shadows the whole time. But it could easily be interpreted as Ra's being the latest zealot leader of an age-old organization. As for the rest, Nolan presented it in such a way that it's plausible (which I find a more suitable word than realism). A traumatized man with the money and the technology to strike fear in the hearts of criminals. A psychiatrist with an inferiority complex who uses fear toxin on his patients. It could happen with a little bit of a suspension of disbelief. In contrast, a mutated man who looks like a crocodile as well as an undead sewer inhabitant require a lot more of a suspension of disbelief and are not entirely plausible since it requires an element of the supernatural, which Nolan seems unwilling to add. Would I want to see Killer Croc and Solomon Grundy? Sure, why not. I'm open to a lot of things regarding Batman films, but I can't see them in Nolan's films based on what I saw in Begins. They are the same character. Regardless of the 'source material' that the script is 'based on' it's all about Batman. Should've phrased it this way: Same character. Different interpretation. Throughout the comics, there have been several interpretations of Batman and the same goes for the films. That's why I've never bought or said common words or phrases like, "They finally got it right." or "Only Nolan gets Batman": if there are so many valid interpretations, what the heck makes one interpretation more "right" than the other? The point I'm trying to make is that some interpretations can't connect into others. Can you see the '60's Batman against Bane? Jeph Loeb's Batman against one of the one-shot '60s villains? Even the films....Bale's Batman against Schwarzeneggar's Freeze?
|
|
|
Post by DBrennan3333 on Jan 28, 2006 5:29:16 GMT -5
I have the feeling that all the facts in the world won't change the minds of people who enjoy believing that 'Batman Begins' was based off of Jeph Loeb's campy Batman rather than Denny O'Neil's more realistic version, so I think I'm setting myself up for frustration. There's nothing more socially irritating than people who deny a truth that's sitting right in front of them.
"The Titanic set sail and sank in 1991."
"Sorry, you're mistaken. It set sail and sank in 1912."
"Nope. I choose to believe it was 1991."
"But it's not a matter of choice, it's empirical. Here are newspaper accounts, Congressional records, passenger lists with birthday-"
"Don't care. The Titanic sank in '91."
Eventually it's just like, "Okay, dude."
Reideen1313: I'm happy that you enjoyed 'Sin City' more than 'Batman Begins,' but, if Warner Brothers wants to make money, they'll avoid all similarities to 'Sin City' like the plague. 'Sin City' opened huge - $40 mil in April - but, due to some of the worst word of mouth in modern cinema history, it fizzled out (EDITED: We have kids and parents that visit our site. If I see any more posts like this from you I'll ban you immediately.) 'Batman Begins' was almost the complete opposite. It opened disappointingly for a movie of its budget - $50 mil - but it was so beloved by both the public and critics alike that it ended up earning over four-times that....which is AMAZING longevity by today's box office standards. What I'm saying is that your tastes in movies are....ummm, special, let's say. (FYI If you continue to insult members of the board, much less staff, that'll get you banned also. Consider this your final warning.)
(And if you found 'Batman Begins' to be "flat," and if you say that it was also it was based off of Jeph Loeb's comics, then wouldn't that mean that you find Jeph Loeb's Batman to be "flat"? But I digress.)
As for your comment that Jeph Loeb was a paid consultant, hey, I'll take your word on it. I'm sure Christopher Nolan & Co. had dozens, maybe even hundreds of consultants. But just because Jeph Loeb told them stuff doesn't mean that they obeyed what he said, okay?
Jeph Loeb:"Chris? Uh, yeah....here's what I want: The part where the cops are chasing the Batmoble? Well, I want the Batmobile to transform into a jet-fighter and fly around and shoot out that police helicopter. Then, see, I want Bruce Wayne's parents to rise from the dead, okay? But they're not the boring old Thomas and Martha of old, oh no. Now, they've turned into man-eating zombies!!! Then, just as they're about to kill Batman, Rachel Dawes reveals that she's BATGIRL! And Batgirl tears out a lamp post and throws it at Bruce's parents, and then-"
Christopher Nolan:Sure, Jeph. We'll do that. [Looks to his assistant] Write that guy his check and get him off my set.
[Jeph Loeb's in the background waving his arms around, pretending to be the Bat-jet.]
Jeph Loeb WEEEEEE!!!!!
Okay, now about your contention that 'Batman Begins' was fake because Ra's al Ghul was immortal. Well, he wasn't immortal. (Did you SEE the movie?) Christopher Nolan stated in an interview that Ra's al Ghul was not intended to be immortal, but he designed it such that it was open to interpretation for fans of the character as traditionally written. Needless to say, the reason Ra's wasn't said to be immortal was because it's too outlandish.
Is 'Batman Begins' realistic? Of course not. Neither is 'Die Hard' or 'True Lies' or 'The Rocketeer.' But, like those movies, it's realistic ENOUGH that we're willing to suspend our disbelief and give it the benefit of the doubt. Sure, once the lights come back on and people file out of the aisles it dawns on them, "Wouldn't all the engineers and mechanics of the Batmobile be able to deduce Batman's identity?" "Yeah....and that cape, that's not big enough to glide on." And so on.
Here's what Christopher Nolan said on this subject:"The philosophy behind everything....was grounding it in reality."
He called realism the movie's "creative mandate" in a seperate interview with ComingSoon.net.
Look, Warner Brothers tried a more expressionistic, mythological Batman. The tried dark expressionism (Tim Burton's Batman....okay) and they tried campy expressionism (Schumacher's Batman....not so okay).
This time, they tried realism: it worked. It worked spectacularly well. Critics (check out RottenTomatoes.com or Ebert & Roeper's Top 10 of 2005) and the public (look at it's fantastic "legs" at the box office, which means great word of mouth.) Maybe after another 17 years they can give expressionism another shot, but for now let's stick to what works.
And that's NOT Jeph Loeb's Batman.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 28, 2006 12:29:18 GMT -5
Jeph Loeb campy?! I consider campy to be the "Holy rusted metal Batman!" Loeb's works are dark. In my opinion, it was most of Loeb's dark Batman that helped inspire this movie(along with Miller's).
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 28, 2006 13:28:14 GMT -5
campy adj : providing sophisticated amusement by virtue of having artificially (and vulgarly) mannered or banal or sentimental qualities
I wouldn't consider Loeb's work campy-in terms of tone, but that's beside the point.
What separates his work from Nolan's would be some of the fantasy elements in it that I just can't see in Nolan's world (mainly bringing in characters like Solomon Grundy and Killer Croc, having ghosts haunt Bruce Wayne at Christmas, etc.). The scenes that are ripped from Loeb's Batman (i.e. the interrogation scene, Scarecrow on a horse) are grounded in a similar reality as Nolan's film where there is little suspension of disbelief and more "wow this could really happen." To be fair, not all of O'Neil's work was realistic either. However, he has written some very good Batman stories that are set in a world of realism. His Man Who Falls story, as DBrennan cited, has the most similar tone as Begins. Death at Midnight and Three is one of my favorites and all it is is Batman going out to save a valuable witness from getting bumped off by the about-to-be-indicted mob boss.
While I'd like to see more fantasy elements, it doesn't look likely for these films and the most difficult part would be fitting them into the films without the average audience scratching their heads. As much as I'd like to see Ra's Al Ghul return, I'm not sure how well Nolan could pull off introducing the Lazarus Pit without the average non-comic-reading audience thinking that it was a cheap ploy to bring Liam Neeson back. It's more likely that Nolan would avoid the challenge. But hey, if he goes up to it and succeeds, more power to him!
|
|
|
Post by reideen1313 on Jan 28, 2006 21:47:57 GMT -5
I have the feeling that all the facts in the world won't change the minds of people who enjoy believing that 'Batman Begins' was based off of Jeph Loeb's campy Batman rather than Denny O'Neil's more realistic version, so I think I'm setting myself up for frustration. It's your opinon. No one here (other than you) said Loeb was better than O'Neil. If you're frustrated, you brought it on yourself. As to Loeb being 'campy' - please, show me how his version of Batman is any more 'campy' than O'Neil's or any other writer that has come before or since then. If it were Mike Allred, I'd be right there with you, agreeing that it was campy. (That's part of Allred's appeal though.) Unfortunately, in this case, you're wrong and I'll show you why. Don't bother trying to say that this film is true to O'Neil's 'vision' of the characters involved either. FYI Batman's first comic book run-in with Ra's Al Ghul involved Robin being kidnapped, whereas in Batman Begins, Robin doesn't yet exist. Also, since when was Joe Chill captured the very night of Bruce's parent's murder and serving twenty years in prison?? Not very true to the character if you ask me. It certainly lessens Batman's potential motivation to clean up crime. One of the driving factors in his nightly war is that he didn't know who murdered them for so long and he doesn't want anyone else to experience something similar if he can prevent it. Oh, I disagree. They're up there on the annoying scale, but they're definately below people that think that their opinion is the only one that's right - and then attempt to put down/ridicule others who don't share their opinion. See below for an example of what I'm talking about. See what I mean? Pretty annoying IMO. I know. Doing a movie that is extremely faithful to the subject matter would be a terrible thing. Funny, the word of mouth that I heard in person and saw on the net was pretty good. DVD sales have been pretty good also. The first 'bare bones' release of the film made $9.84 million in sales its first week (according to Home Media Retailing) and topped sales for all DVDs for its first two weeks of release. I'm not trying to turn this into a Begins vs other films debate, but it seems like you need some education on Sin City. Sin City was shown at the Cannes film festival in competition. The film was well-received and won Robert Rodriguez the Technical Grand Prize for the film's "visual shaping." Now, when Begins was released, it was immediately available in both the stripped down version and the deluxe version. The deluxe version, suprisingly included copies of Detective Comics #27, Batman: The Man Who Falls, and an excerpt of the 13-issue Batman: The Long Halloween. Good thing Loeb didn't have any influence on the film. Begins made approx $205,343,774 (domestic gross) - which is to be expected from a long established character like Batman, coming from WB and DC (y'know - moneybags). Very respectable numbers, considering the flops that had come before it. On the other hand, Sin City made approx $74,103,820 (domestic gross) - consider that this was a portrayal of a much lesser known character & property, it was a black and white film (which - while a stunning effect, I believe hurt the film's $ numbers) and it was released through a smaller studio and thus had a smaller budget for marketing. Again, an attempt to insult, rather than engage in intelligent debate. Typical of the posts I've seen from you. Here's another tidbit for you. Christopher Nolan originally didn't want Jonathan Crane to wear a mask or be referred to as the Scarecrow. That's like saying that Bale shouldn't have worn the suit or been referred to as Batman. Sounds to me like Nolan really didn't want to make 'Batman' as much as he wanted to make another of his flakey, low-budget, dark themed movies, such as Memento. Nope. Nice try to twist my words to fit your arguement though. My point is, Loeb was one writer that influenced the script. Only because I'd prove you wrong if you tried to dispute it. True - but it's just as valid to say that 'just because O'Neil said to do something, doesn't mean it made it into the final version of the film. You weren't there and neither was I. It's all speculation at this point. If you can't prove that Loeb didn't contribute to the final version of the film, than drop the arguement - because that's all this is. You aren't happy that someone disagrees with you, so you're throwing a tantrum. Another unrealistic portrayal of something that you dreamed up. Not worth replying to in all honesty. How about this to refute your portrayal of events: The line "Dr. Crane isn't here right now, but if you'd like to make an appointment..." is taken directly from the story "Fears" in the three-part series, Batman: Haunted Knight. Guess who the writer of that series is? I'll betcha can - it's LOEB!! Still want to argue this with me? Hmm...last I checked, Batman is a DC character. Ra's is a DC character. Begins was a DC movie. Nolan is JUST a director - he hasn't contributed to any of the history of any of the characters portrayed in the film. Why exactly would I care what his take on Ra's is? Oh wait - I don't. Ra's is immortal via the Lazarus Pits. Like it or not - it's DC fact regardless of if Nolan thinks it's correct or not. Just a side note, the Ra's decoy Bruce Wayne encounters at the party, wears a green collar with a high cape, a reference to the comic version of Ra's - further proof that it's the same Ra's and IS immortal. LOL!! This IS a comic book movie, right? It's all outlandish. Correct - they all require a suspension of belief. So does the FACT that Ra's is immortal and Crane is the Scarecrow (and wears a mask). Again, for some reason, you think that quoting Nolan, who has added nothing of substance to this character or the mythos, is going to prove your point for you. I don't get it. All that Nolan has done for Batman was direct - he didn't even write the script by himself! He was 'co-writer' - that's like saying I made the coffee in the morning. Forget about the fact that my wife put the coffee and the water into the machine - I did the important part and turned it on. As I've demonstrated, Loeb's influence on the film IS there - whether you want to admit it or not. Really sucks when you become what you initially found 'socially irritating'.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Jan 28, 2006 22:27:01 GMT -5
Reideen1313: I'm happy that you enjoyed 'Sin City' more than 'Batman Begins,' but, if Warner Brothers wants to make money, they'll avoid all similarities to 'Sin City' like the plague. 'Sin City' opened huge - $40 mil in April - but, due to some of the worst word of mouth in modern cinema history, it fizzled out (EDITED: We have kids and parents that visit our site. If I see any more posts like this from you I'll ban you immediately.) 'Batman Begins' was almost the complete opposite. It opened disappointingly for a movie of its budget - $50 mil - but it was so beloved by both the public and critics alike that it ended up earning over four-times that....which is AMAZING longevity by today's box office standards. [shadow=purple,left,300]Sin City was also released in April, a bad time for box office. Not only that... it was also well received by critics.
By the way, it didn't flop by any means. It made back it's budget, which was around $45 million. It actually tripled it, counting overseas box office numbers. I also found Sin City better than Batman Begins, primarily because it was extremely faithful to the source material. Begins was an excellent movie, but I thought the realism factor got in the way of the superhero wow factor.[/shadow][shadow=purple,left,300] I personally found "Brokeback Mountain," "Capote," "Good Night and Good Luck," "Crash," "Munich" and "Transamerica" as emotionally compelling. Maybe even more. But that's not saying Batman Begins is a bad movie... it's just saying there are better movies. [/shadow][shadow=purple,left,300]Christopher Nolan, in the special features on the Begins Deluxe Edition, claims Loeb helped inspire Batman Begins. Actually, I even think Loeb is interviewed (though I could be mistaken). You should watch it some time. But I wouldn't want that to ruin your image of Mr. Nolan, since he is, like, God. Afterall, he created Batman. [/shadow][shadow=purple,left,300]Yeah yeah yeah... expressionism. realism. We get it. You hate Loeb. Whatever. You keep forgetting the fact that Batman Begins contains... well, Batman. Christopher Nolan and David Goyer have stated that Loeb has influenced their incarnation of Batman. I have a feeling that as the series progresses, it will slowly slip away from what realism Begins had. It has to. Otherwise, it will begin to shift into previous efforts. WB is doing this series again to make up for what they lost with the 1990s mess. Getting rid of the Joker's disfiguration, changing his motifs, making villains fit in the real world... if that becomes the overwhelming ideal for Nolan's universe, it will ultimately fold in on itself like the Burton/ Schumacher films. There is a line that has to be crossed. Your attacks on us for wanting this series to be faithful to the comics is absolutely absurd and without merit, considering we are, first and foremost, Batman fans. We are not Christopher Nolan fans.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 28, 2006 22:54:34 GMT -5
I have a feeling that as the series progresses, it will slowly slip away from what realism Begins had. It has to. Otherwise, it will begin to shift into previous efforts. WB is doing this series again to make up for what they lost with the 1990s mess. Getting rid of the Joker's disfiguration, changing his motifs, making villains fit in the real world... if that becomes the overwhelming ideal for Nolan's universe, it will ultimately fold in on itself like the Burton/ Schumacher films. There is a line that has to be crossed. I can definitely agree with that. At the moment, I can't really see Nolan put in some of the fantasy elements simply based on what I've seen of Begins- despite my wishes to see them, I'll have to agree with DBrennan on that. But I agree with J-Man and reideen1313 that realism shouldn't become a restriction in which comic staples-that are well known among comic fans and non-comic fans alike-are severely altered just for realism's sake. Nolan's wish to not have Scarecrow in a mask is an example (which is why I thank God that he's working with Goyer. Although the man isn't the best screenwriter in the world, he knows and cares about the character more than a lot of previous Batman screenwriters). At the moment, Nolan has a pretty fine mix of both worlds in which the realism wasn't restrictive and the fantasy elements were plausible. And hopefully it'll stay that way for the sequels. I've pretty much been on the fence throughout this thread. I agree with those of you that Loeb had an influence on Begins, but I also agree with DBrennan that it's not the "same world." While I agree with DBrennan that Nolan has set a realistic world and going against that wouldn't be so great for continuity, I also think that Nolan is intelligent enough and has the ability to transition towards a world that has more comic-accurate elements so that realism doesn't restrict the series from story potential. And if he doesn't do that, he'll be criticized just like Burton & Schumacher for "going overboard" on his personal vision rather than treat the characters faithfully.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 28, 2006 22:58:00 GMT -5
I have a feeling that as the series progresses, it will slowly slip away from what realism Begins had. It has to. Otherwise, it will begin to shift into previous efforts. WB is doing this series again to make up for what they lost with the 1990s mess. Getting rid of the Joker's disfiguration, changing his motifs, making villains fit in the real world... if that becomes the overwhelming ideal for Nolan's universe, it will ultimately fold in on itself like the Burton/ Schumacher films. There is a line that has to be crossed. I can definitely agree with that. At the moment, I can't really see Nolan put in some of the fantasy elements simply based on what I've seen of Begins- despite my wishes to see them, I'll have to agree with DBrennan on that. But I agree with J-Man and reideen1313 that realism shouldn't become a restriction in which comic staples-that are well known among comic fans and non-comic fans alike-are severely altered just for realism's sake. At the moment, Nolan has a pretty fine mix of both worlds in which the realism wasn't restrictive and the fantasy elements were plausible. And hopefully it'll stay that way for the sequels. I agree with you guys, as well on this one. I think a good example to reference are the X-Men films. Now, the X universe is far less realistic than Batman..but Bryan Singer managed to do an excellent job of blending it with the real world in X-Men. Then, X2 blew everyone away...however, by that point, I was confident enough in the films to want to see a little bit of geekiness...some sentinels..maybe an omega red...still done well, but maybe not so realistic. Now that he's off the film and it was taken over by the current director, we're going to get these things that we would not have otherwise. Bryan Singer set a tone, but he doesn't turn out to be necessary for the franchise to live on. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 28, 2006 23:33:16 GMT -5
I consider campy to be the "Holy rusted metal Batman! Come on! You laughed the first time you watched it too.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 28, 2006 23:49:17 GMT -5
I think the X-men crew considered putting Sentinels in the second film. I know they did drawings of sentinels, but whether they had included them to any further degree (rough drafts), I don't know. I'd love to see Wolverine rip the guts out of a sentinel. Maybe for X-3.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 29, 2006 6:13:43 GMT -5
I think the X-men crew considered putting Sentinels in the second film. I know they did drawings of sentinels, but whether they had included them to any further degree (rough drafts), I don't know. I'd love to see Wolverine rip the guts out of a sentinel. Maybe for X-3. They discussed it..but in the end, Singer wanted more realism (sound familiar?) and I worry that Nolan will sacrifice good storytelling and character use for an unnecessary level of realism. He's done a good job re-setting the tone...but I think other people should have a shot after this next film. hmmm...I nominate Jeph Loeb
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 29, 2006 6:16:49 GMT -5
Reideen1313: I'm happy that you enjoyed 'Sin City' more than 'Batman Begins,' but, if Warner Brothers wants to make money, they'll avoid all similarities to 'Sin City' like the plague. 'Sin City' opened huge - $40 mil in April - but, due to some of the worst word of mouth in modern cinema history, it fizzled out (EDITED: We have kids and parents that visit our site. If I see any more posts like this from you I'll ban you immediately.) 'Batman Begins' was almost the complete opposite. It opened disappointingly for a movie of its budget - $50 mil - but it was so beloved by both the public and critics alike that it ended up earning over four-times that....which is AMAZING longevity by today's box office standards. What I'm saying is that your tastes in movies are....ummm, special, let's say. (FYI If you continue to insult members of the board, much less staff, that'll get you banned also. Consider this your final warning.)Refer to this forum rule: ***NO insluting or flaming..no undue sarcasm and all around insulting behavior. We wouldn't accept that kind of abuse in real life, and we won't here on the forum either. Every fan on LoG treats each other with respect, even when we disagree! We're all fans here to have mature conversation.We're all passionate about our franchise here...but mature fans respect each other and can debate without resorting to name calling and unnecessary negative attitude. We're here to have fun....try to lighten up. This is your last warning.
|
|
|
Post by DBrennan3333 on Jan 29, 2006 6:41:51 GMT -5
Point #1: No, Jeph Loeb was not interviewed anywhere on the 'Batman Begins' DVD.
Point #2: No, Christopher Nolan did not mention him anywhere on the DVD
Point #3: Dennis O'Neil -was interviewed on the DVD (and said that the best interpretations of Batman are realistic) -wrote the novelization of the movie (it's really good - check it out!) -wrote the intro to the 'Batman Begins Visual Guide'
Point #4: BatmAngelus - As always, thanks for helping to even the odds a little bit. I was beginning to feel more outnumbered than a 50 Cent fan at the Country Music Awards. Against these odds, I was going to go down like Lithuania in a war against America.
Point #5: If this Batman franchise devolves into the Loeb-ish state which a very loud minority wants it to, it will experience the same downward spiral as the old one. It will go down like Apollo Creed against Drago. (Only nobody will mourn its loss, but lament all the squandered potential, just as they did before.)
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 29, 2006 6:52:10 GMT -5
Point #1: No, Jeph Loeb was not interviewed anywhere on the 'Batman Begins' DVD. Point #2: No, Christopher Nolan did not mention him anywhere on the DVD Point #3: Dennis O'Neil -was interviewed on the DVD (and said that the best interpretations of Batman are realistic) -wrote the novelization of the movie (it's really good - check it out!) -wrote the intro to the 'Batman Begins Visual Guide' Point #4: BatmAngelus - As always, thanks for helping to even the odds a little bit. I was beginning to feel more outnumbered than a 50 Cent fan at the Country Music Awards. Against these odds, I was going to go down like Lithuania in a war against America. Point #5: If this Batman franchise devolves into the Loeb-ish state which a very loud minority wants it to, it will experience the same downward spiral as the old one. It will go down like Apollo Creed against Drago. (Only nobody will mourn its loss, but lament all the squandered potential, just as they did before.) Honestly, man...I'm not sure where these die-hard Loeb-ers are you're referring to. It seems more like you've created a feud yourself, and others are arguing with you just for the sake of it, lol. I don't think anyone here LOVES Loeb particularly. I know I don't. He's off his rocker half the time. He's written some good stuff...but so have MANY other writers. NO ONE here would ever bash Denny for his work..he's a legend. I really think you're creating your own feud here....
|
|