THE DARK KNIGHT, aka Batman Begins A Little More: Sequel Anticipation/Rumours/Etc.

Uh, the Red Hood?

Script by Don Martin!

http://www.randomhouse.com/rhpg/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345479464&view=excerpt

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21542

So with that in mind, Ghostface should play the Joker.

Wakanda?

With an African Dr. Doom, you can play up the idea that he's despotic and crazy, but also has some kind of a point with his anti-imperialist views. Make Mr. Fantastic into more of a patriotic stooge-type (brilliant and compassionate, but uninterested in politics except to the degree that they can help get funding for his wacky science theories.) Doom's mutilation comes from a collaborative effort with Reed on new eco-friendly drilling technology happening simultaneously with the Four getting their powers in space - no, actually cook up some way to link them up. That way you get a better angle on Ben sympathizing with Doom's mutilation, and get the politics angle in the wedge between him and Reed. I could go on, but that would mean thinking more about it, and since there's no chance it'll ever happen, I don't see any reason to bother.

-- chap who would dare to kill all the threads (joe.goode...) (webmail), October 13th, 2005. (link)

Danny Glover to be Pam Grier?

http://www.spiderfan.org/characters/images/ringmaster/ringmaster3.jpg

I saw the teaser at Bourne Ult. yesterday, and it works about 1,000,000x better on a GIANT SCREEN!

I've never seen Hugo Weaving bald, but by his face and the characters he has played, I think he could also make a good Hugo Strange.

Goodnight, Nurse!

You are not authorized to view this page
You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y298/hukl/dknight3.jpg

That hair combined with the makeup makes him look more like Juggalo than The Joker.

I'm still not sure whether I really wanna see a goth Joker.

Bat-Marketers have too much time on their hands (and so do I):
http://media.ibelieveinharveydent.com/0413081500.mp3

Hey, how about some smoke for your ass (courtesy of IFC's Indie Eye blog):

David Poland: "This is not a Batman movie... this is a 2008 version of The Untouchables with The Batman as Elliot Ness, The Joker as Al Capone, much better toys, and, it seems, a topper."

Peter Travers: "It's enough to watch Bale chillingly render Batman as a lost warrior, evoking Al Pacino in The Godfather II in his delusion and desolation. It's enough to see Ledger conjure up the anarchy of the Sex Pistols and A Clockwork Orange as he creates a Joker for the ages."

Richard Corliss: "In its rethinking and transcending of a schlock source, The Dark Knight is up there with David Cronenberg's 1986 version of The Fly. It turns pulp into dark poetry."

Off-topic: I am hoping TDK is nothing @ all like DePalma's The Untouchables, which was some uneven duct-taped bullshit saved only by Sean Connery & Billy Drago.

Also, Richard Corliss can lick a nippled breastplate.

comic book movies are not for kids anymore!

Hopefully, other enterprising critics with heads firmly ensconced up their effete asses will make sure to reference one or all of the following: Scorscese / Ford / Borzage / Kurosawa / Cimino / Malick / Herzog / Turtletaub.

damn nolan et al for trying to turn this bullshit into cinema

do you guys also hate on 'unfaithful' adaptations of literary novels?

Nah, I just hate that film critic cliche about pulp films that "transcend their genre" -- or "schlock source" as Corliss calls it -- because (a) it's 2008, and people who still get snooty about genre fiction really need to get a life and (b) really, how can a film about a guy dressing a bat costume (even a clever one) really not be schlock?

I mean, I speak as someone who likes schlock... (I am posting on a comic board in the mid-afternoon, after all).

Sorry, "dressing up in bat costume"

lol i thought this was the 'official' (ile) dark knight thread sry

i dont read comics carry on

That said, I'm super excited about this. Who wouldn't be?

altho to try to save myself i will say that i think you guys should ease up on people turning genre fiction into cinematic art - thats sort of what movies are all about, they are different forms & its ridic important to recognize that xp

me too!

and iget what you mean 'comics are art' or whatever - but like i said if a director made a more or less shot-for-shot adaptation of a literary novel id be bored as fuck; if we're gonna assume comics+novels+movies are all equal art forms than each artist has to be allowed to put his own stamp on the story

try reading again, deeznuts:

I just hate that critic cliche about pulp films that "transcend their genre"

x-post

Agreed, there's nothing wrong with trying to turn a genre into art -- although god forbid someone should make a movie of a Jeph Loeb Batman comic -- but I imagine the people who make the more basic genre stuff think they're making art, too...

yeah you have right to be insulted but still movie critics favoring movies over comic books, & referencing movies they love when referring to a movie they love

aint that bad really

Don't mind me -- I'm writing a CD review about a band that transcends its schlocky metal roots and aspires to be as great as Jawbox or Fugazi.

also the idea that pulp film can transcend its genre doesnt in any way mean pulp books or comics cant as well

xp thats a dumb comparison because its suggesting one genre is better than the other, which is not what film critics mean when they say a film transcends it material

And what are the connotations of "schlock" in your world, nuts?

im not gonna be a douche & take some bullshit tack that corliss is saying TDK isnt better than its original material (he is, & it probably is) - but a)he's a film critic, not comic book guy & b) turning 'pulp' into 'poetry' is a stape of great flicks...taking simplistic plots & concepts & enhancing them thru the visual medium which is yr territory

i know comics do this too but id much much rather watch a movie than read a comic book, but thats just me (and like 80 billion other people)

Coming into the comics board and arguing about the superiority of movies to comics - based on a movie you haven't seen and (I'm just guessing here) comics you haven't read.

APPLES!

ORANGES!

I SAID APPLES DAMNIT!

dont disagree w/ any of that oily! but we're talking about transference to transcendence - the whole def of the latter is about taking the limits of the former & exceeding them: im not trying to argue taht movies are better than comics (though they are) but the whole idea of 'filming' a book or comic isnt transferring the source to a new larger group of people but saying this is how you make a great movie motherfuckers

im not trying to argue taht movies are better than comics (though they are)

BAN

I was offered FREE TIX to an advance IMAX screening, but there's no Vancouver show on the list. Nearest one is Seattle, or there's Edmonton. Probably not a good allocation of funds (one plane/train/bus ticket vs paying to see TDK) considering everything.

So....?

Finally saw this last night, haven't really collected thoughts, but I was very impressed.

What did YOU think?

I saw it for the second time last night. So yeah, it kinda kicked ass a lot. Much talk in the ILE thread about how it's much more a cop flick than a superhero flick, and wishing for a Gotham Central movie or miniseries starring Gary Oldman. Sounds good to me!

I think it paves the way for an amazing Renee Montoya flick.

I had to supress a giggle the first time Batman spoke (finally saw it last night).

Funny, I had to suppress a giggle every time Batman spoke. Especially when he was having fairly lengthy conversations with Gordon and Dent.

I thought the whole thing was kind of awful. Non-stop, poorly filmed action. I've heard people make the argument that it's more of a crime epic, but I'm not sure that makes it a better movie.

"Why so serious?"

The irony was rich, so very rich.

Mixed reaction - Nolan has little use for ostentatious visuals, which is certainly peculiar, and a lack of grace when it comes to rhythm. Also: The film goes DEAD when ever Bat/Bruce is the focal point, really he's just there to structure the whole PHILOSOPHY 101 (with fists!)shenanigans. BUT: god, Ledger's good - the "nurse drag" sequence is pretty much imprinted in my mind, with the exploding hospital as a genuinely brilliant closer.

More to come, if I'm bored...

Am I the only who saw Captain America's sheild?

BANNED

Very conflicted about this film a handful of hours after my first viewing... I think it has a brilliant film lurking somewhere within its two and a half hours, but as it stands it's flabby and way too talky. We don't need the subtext to every scene explained to us by the characters several times, thanks.

The Joker was just astounding though, not only in terms of the performance but in the way he was written. Loved how the character's past was left a complete enigma. BUT I didn't buy Two-Face at all, partially because Eckhart was badly miscast - smarmy and unlikable as a do-gooder and utterly unconvincing as a psychopath.

Remarkable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJWpmPGCR1c&feature=related

Anyone following the ILE Dark Knight thread by the way? I was going to post on there, but it's massive and seems to be getting very abstract. Worth reading?

i liked the after-credits scene where green lantern shows up at bruce wayne's house and asks him to join the JLA.

Yeah, but I dunno about the casting of Luis Guzman as Hal Jordan.

I am okay with the casting of Luis Guzman as anything.

Black Canary? Bring it on!

Yeah, the ILE DK thread is kind of interesting, but it's kind of degenerated mostly into the same people saying "it IS political" vs. "it ISN'T" for about 50 posts.

a list of "superlatives used to describe Ledger’s work"

hollywood patting itself on the back shockaaaahhhh.