It seems to be a sort of...thing that happens with good superhero movies. If we look at the x-men, 1 and 2 were brilliant especially number 2, superman and superman 2 both great films again no.2 was really good, same with spiderman and blade. But then..they did a 3rd film, superman 3 was terrible seeing as in the end the main villain was some crappy computer that neally suffocated supes which is silly seeing how supes can I believe hold his breath for 20 minutes. Spiderman 3 was terrible, they ruined Venom and the storyline was basically MJ getting kidnapped AGAIN! X-men 3 this was worse than spiderman 3 by a long shot and again a character ruined, the phoenix, I had high hopes for X3 during the end of X2 when they showed the phoenix shape in the water. Blade 3, dracula looked like a homo to me, and again a character ruined.
The original batman films with Keaton were pretty good, not as good as the new ones with Bale but still...then came batman forever, they had Riddler and Two face, with two great actors portraying the two and Kilmer as batman...seemed like a pretty good set of actors and two great villains..how could it go wrong?
So with this said..could batman 3 suck? or will it be the first third sequel superhero movie that actually doesn't suck monkey balls?
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
As I mention before...Nolan MUST drive this franchise to a "Detective Batman" area for this franchise to come full circle. We seen the begining...battle his arch nemesis...and now the 3rd most important factor of the Batman myth...his detective skills.
If he does that...suckage or not..Nolan truly have given us the FULL Batman.
"World's Greatest Detective" is the proper title for the 3rd film.
i liked blade 3 and xmen 3 they were good movies IMO.
i think all the spiderman movies were mediocer at best and at the time superman 1 and 2 were good but now... they are OK i think because margot kidder is annoying and the richard donner version of 2 is wayyyyy better. 3 and 4 were complete shit. (funny story i was at future shop and they had superman 3 in the bargin bin at the till for 5 bucks and a guy saw it and said to the cashier in a serious tone, that is the best one.)
provided chis nolan stays and they take there time and make a good story with some well placed or directed actors 3 should be good. but i fear if they hand it off to someone else then it will probably suck. and keep it to 1 or 2 villans tops.
Thats what happened in with x-men 3, it got given to someone else cuz Ratner went and did superman returns, can't remember who did X3 but I really hated it and was very dissapointed in the direction they went with Dark phoenix and plus I think the storyline in general was just a complete mess
I too would like to see this. I want Nolan to take a risk and give us a Batman movie with a completely different atmosphere, one that has smart twists and holysheet endings.
Because that's certainly part of what Batman has been about. There are some serious threats out in gotham, you know he's prepping something, but he doesn't reveal it until the end, and then you see the genius of the prep-master.
Well, I saw Nolan trying to show a bit of the detective side of Batman in TDK, but it was quite superficial.
Basically I am thinking of the scene where Batman examines the block of concrete where the bullet entered and then he found something with it (forgot what). But it was all really relying on technology and does not show off Batman's own innate detective skills or genius at all.
They definatley have to stick with the look and feel that he is merely a man and not a super hero in the general term but he does have the money and know how to have some kick ass detective skills.
a better title would be Gothams Dark Protector
or Shawdow Knight. (this would implement that Gotham is ready to accept him back)
Well if Chris Nolan gets on his blog or twitter or whatever he may have and writes "I was watching George Clooney on old episodes of Roseanne last night and realized that as much as I love the dark Batman and the campy Batman was the rage in the 60's, I don't think that gay Batman really had a chance to flourish over two movies. I'm replacing Christian Bale with Billy Baldwin and signing Andy Dick to play Robin and Damon Wayans wearing Eartha Kitt's corpse will be catwoman."-I'd be worried.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
They have to make the riddlers riddles more difficult for Batman and mean more than just what he is going to attack.
Not like the original show, they solved them in 2 seconds and in batman forever which sucked he figured them out very quickly too.
Riddler may be the most predictable choice for whose next, but he's certainly not "essential". They could very well have any villain besides him.
Also, Nigma is overrated.
As for the topic, I dunno. I think a more important question though would be, will Batman suffer a 4th movie suckage again? (assuming the 3rd installment is successful and popular enough for a sequel)
KMC Community Forums
Oct 13th, 2009 04:36 PM
