scubasteve
Super Freak
Yes. He'd work in a meat locker or be a dry ice e-tailer.
Official "The Dark Knight" SPOILER Thread
- Thread starter MaulFan
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Yes. He'd work in a meat locker or be a dry ice e-tailer.
Not what we would think of Mr. Freeze. He'd have to undergo some dramatic changes in his character for him to work. He obviously coudn't be a frozen man and I'm not sure how realistic they can make his freeze gun. Liquid Nitrogen can only go so far.
Absolutely agree with this 100%.
Act 1 was about Bruce having an idea, embracing it, and embarking on it.
Act 2 was about Bruce coming to realizations about the burden he's taken on and having doubts about whether he really wants to do it or not. Only at the very last moment does he start to realize a true purpose for Batman and what that persona can be for Gotham and how it can fix things.
Act 3 will be about Batman truly becoming Batman. The first 2 acts were about discovering himself and his purpose and everything, the 3rd act needs to exist to show Batman as he is meant to be. If written correctly, Batman should feel fairly different in Act 3 because he's fully formed; TDK closes with the true Nolan Batman's birth in essence, he's not a hero, he's a silent guardian. It is necessary for Nolan's story to be complete, to see that arc. I love the close of TDK because it opens up Act 3, not having the story brought to conclusion would be very upsetting for m.
TDK is a great film, as is Begins, 2 of my most favorite movies out there, but neither is "perfect" to me, they each have flaws, but Begins' flaws are the strengths of TDK and vice versa. If executed properly, Act 3 will merge those 2 films strengths into a grand finale.
As for the idea of using Joker in the second Act being a waste or whatever, I disagree. Joker is the ultimate villain and perfect for Act 2. What better test of Bruce's committment to being Batman than to pit him against a heavy hitter like Joker. I think Act 3 will provide an equally strong, if not stronger, threat as the Joker, but because Batman has risen above the Joker, he'll have grown and have the resources to rise again. And as great as Heath's Joker is, no actor or actress has ever given a performance that couldn't be rivaled by another. Not saying the same character, but another performance could be just as awe-inspiring as Ledger's Joker was, and if they choose the right storyline for Act 3, we could even get something better.
scubasteve
Super Freak
Let's face it. TDK is better than BB. I can only expect Nolan will want to continue making each film better than its predecessor, while also meeting rising expectations, so indulge me. Give me a character within the Batman rogues gallery that can stand on the same level as Joker (in terms of eminence) and an actor that can rival Ledger's Joker, all while making this film as good or better than TDK.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
Well said Sean. TDK was indeed a 2nd Act, as it was meant to be. I think some are confusing good episodic story telling with Film Trilogy Storytelling.
I can only imagine a fan of "24" saying "What a great Season finale, I think they should end the series now."
Batman was not redeemed in TDK, only sucked back into the fray, reluctantly, but purposefully. And in so doing lost the only Woman he loved.
That is NOT who Batman is or became. He was NOT appreciated by GPD or the General Public for that matter and believed the White Knight could take over his mantle... that his job was done and was willing to give it up. His identity and purpose was NOT fully realized. No-one can take over his mantle and he is just beginning to realize that now, that he is needed if unappreciated. The question is, is he still committed?
We don't know, no matter what Gordon says or believes. As far as Batman is concerned, it is still a mystery to us, to him, and written as such.
This is an incomplete character arc by any definition.
For those who understand Episodic Storytelling, Character Arcs and Film Trilogy Storytelling, this is clearly a classic case of a 2nd Act Story.
Villains? As mentioned the next Villain will be far more powerful than Batman, he will be up against impossible odds this time, not improbable odds.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with. :blackbat
I can only imagine a fan of "24" saying "What a great Season finale, I think they should end the series now."
Batman was not redeemed in TDK, only sucked back into the fray, reluctantly, but purposefully. And in so doing lost the only Woman he loved.
That is NOT who Batman is or became. He was NOT appreciated by GPD or the General Public for that matter and believed the White Knight could take over his mantle... that his job was done and was willing to give it up. His identity and purpose was NOT fully realized. No-one can take over his mantle and he is just beginning to realize that now, that he is needed if unappreciated. The question is, is he still committed?
We don't know, no matter what Gordon says or believes. As far as Batman is concerned, it is still a mystery to us, to him, and written as such.
This is an incomplete character arc by any definition.
For those who understand Episodic Storytelling, Character Arcs and Film Trilogy Storytelling, this is clearly a classic case of a 2nd Act Story.
Villains? As mentioned the next Villain will be far more powerful than Batman, he will be up against impossible odds this time, not improbable odds.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with. :blackbat
Last edited:
See, to me, that is the, for lack of better words, erroneous mindset to consider Nolan's films with.
Yes, Nolan is drawing upon Batman lore and mythology for characters and story, but he is not slave to it. Nothing says that he even has to use a pre-existing villain, nor has to make his interpretation slave to their origins.
If Chris Nolan wants Mr. Freeze to be the ultimate Batman villain, his team can write it as such and even if that's not how he is in Batman lore, you can throw it out.
All best are off in Nolan's Batman world, it'll be what he wants and feels is right, and that could even be that Joker isn't the ultimate nemesis.
As for actors, this genre is unique and you can't judge ability to succeed by other films. Yes some folks backed Ledger from day 1, but there was some reluctance to the idea because no previous performance of his suggested the Joker was within him, but the first time you hear him speak in the teaser, you know he's found something. It was a great surprise. Show me half the movies he's been in and I'd never imagine Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, but I thought he really defined the character in his performance. Personally, I love Johnny Depp as an actor, but I'm not sure his style would fit in Nolan's world, but if cast I'm sure he could prove me wrong. All I'm trying to say is, not taking away from what Ledger did, it is not as though it can't be rivaled or surpassed. Some people used to say Nicholson's Joker was unsurpassable and now voices think Ledger blows him out of the water. It all seems unsurpassable until it's surpassed.
scubasteve
Super Freak
If Nolan steered away from classic Batman lore, as far as villains go, it would be one of the costliest mistakes he will ever make. Plus, it would never happen. WB and DC would never allow it.
He's GOT to have a Bat-villain in the third act. And, if anyone can make it work, Nolan can, so we'll have to wait and see!!
He's GOT to have a Bat-villain in the third act. And, if anyone can make it work, Nolan can, so we'll have to wait and see!!
plasmid303
Super Freak
At this point, I'd think WB would give Nolan free reign to do whatever he wants with Batman and the villains.
I mean, they allowed him to use an obscure and little-heard of villain in Batman Begins (Ra's Al Ghul), which was a big gamble considering it was the first film in the new, revamped Batman film franchise. But the villain, along with Scarecrow, fit in with the theme, and the WB execs understood that. I think they'll feel the same once the third Batfilm makes it's way into pre-production (if it hasn't already, for all we know, keep your eyes on bogus-sounding movie names and title anouncements in the coming months).
I still find it funny, after watching the BB DVD features, that Nolan had the WB execs come to his house and sit in his garage to read the BB script.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
You are 100% correct. Alan Horn was quoted as saying "It's in Chris' hands". And with the financial success of this Franchise, I think he means it.
I bet Chris at least starts developing the new Batmobile this Spring. I only wish I was a fly on the wall in his Garage.
scubasteve
Super Freak
I don't buy it. Not only would it piss off Bat-fans, but it wouldn't work without a classic villain from the comics, Nolanized of course.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
To clarify my last post I agree Nolan does have free reign, that is confirmed. I don't necessarily agree with any comments regarding newly Invented Villains.
We shall see what Chris and Co. come up with.
We shall see what Chris and Co. come up with.
Last edited:
According to the quote from the writers the next villian will be a more obscure villian from the Bat verse. Similiar to what they did with Ra's and Scarecrow. They don't want to do a villian that's been done before when they have an entire bat stable to pull from.
Sure he was. He started his crimefighting "career" as a murderer at heart with a good family name. He ended TDK with a tarnished heroic persona and a murderer by name. That's an awesome journey and in no need of further "development." What greater act of heroism is there than saving the city and not getting the credit for it?
I think its too bad that you've equated your opinion on the subject with higher knowledge of cinematic storytelling. Yes I'm aware of the "three act play" approach. TDK has its own three acts and BB and TDK together create a separate three act play. You don't always have to be a slave to the the "movie trilogy" formula to achieve that.
SW: ANH had three acts. Lucas expanded it into a trilogy, then stated he was going to make a trilogy of trilogies. He settled for two and like it or not, the SW story is complete.
Batman is complete. If you think that being loved by the citizens of Gotham is a defining characteristic of Batman that demands to be realized on film, or that he needs to get married and live happily ever after or whatever else that wasn't realized in TDK, then yes at least one more movie would be required. But that is a simple matter of opinion, nothing more.
Last edited:
I don't think the 3rd act should or will be about him becoming a hero in the eyes of Gotham. That may be an aspect, but it's not a point to be made. The real arc that needs to be developed in the 3rd act, and what really finishes Batman's story, because it's not, is Bruce fully becoming Batman, which he hasn't, he's been refining him from the start of Begins to the close of TDK. He's figuring out who/what is Batman, act 3 needs to be told to say, in Nolan's Gotham, THIS is Batman. Outside of the suit and such, Batman hasn't really been defined in this movie series, he's a work in progress, act 3 will be the finished product.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
Whatever you say Khev. You're right and everyone else is wrong, including Nolan, Goyer and the entire creative team who envisioned and planned a classic three Act play from the beginning. Batman is complete now because a fanboy blogger named Khev said so.
I'll also pass it on to Chris, David and the Creative Execs at Warners... (some of whom I've worked with) I'd love to see you get in a room with them and try to argue this with them.
I'll even get the popcorn. If ya don't get it, ya don't get it. Time to move on...
I'll make it even simpler for you..
Begins: Batman is Born
TDK: Batman develops but is not fully committed. He is still learning who he is and what his role in life should be. His arc is incomplete.
Batman 3: Batman becomes complete.
Last edited:
Agent0028
Inebriated
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,758
- Reaction score
- 1
So is Nolan definitely doing a third one, I thought I heard he was only contracted for two. Of course I also heard he was contracted for three. But if he is only contracted for two then it wouldn't make much sense to do a three part act with only a contract to do two.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
We don't know, the franchise is in his hands. He's burned out now and needs time to recouperate and get away from it, clear his head. But I doubt he'll leave all his hard work to be completed by someone else.
Nolan seems to take a one at a time approach. Even though he has a plan for Batman's story, he takes each movie on in itself, which I think is part of his success, he doesn't get wrapped up in the connections and things, he just looks to make the best movie for each story. I read an interview about TDK where he said he wasn't thinking about a sequel after Begins, but the right story came along and he rolled with it. I think at this point, he's probably more committed to making another as he's really getting his story going, but like pjam said, he's going to breath for a bit after TDK before thinking about the next. It'll likely be 2011 before that film comes out anyway.
pjam
Here on the Perimeter
It's gonna be quite a while. I'm sure Goyer has some ideas and they'll be spitballing them around next year but until a Villain (which fully defines Batman) is chosen, I doubt we'll see much movement on this...
Similar threads
