Will batman suffer the 3rd movie suckage?

Originally posted by steverules_2
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?

yeah kinda makes you wonder.

this post is HALF correct

.yes superman 1 and 2 were awesome movies and so was xmen 1 and two but three of course was horrible,but as fare as spiderman goes,only the second one was any good at all.the first and third looked like they were written by a 5 year old,people just dont want to get past the fact that a spiderman movie was finally made and put on to the screen to see how horribly made that movie REALLY was. and before the nolan batman movies,Batman Forever was the ONLY half way decent batman movie made of the four cause val kilmer made a MUCH better bruce wayne and at least looked the part and did not kill people in cowardly ways like those pathetic burton batman movies did.

accidental double post.

Hopefully not. Unlike other superhero franchise it will probably be directed by the same guy, the Spider-man movies were all directed by the same guy and the third one was disappointing. But that was mostly due to studio interference.

Not if Nolan is directing or Bale is Batman it wont.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah kinda makes you wonder.

this post is HALF correct

.yes superman 1 and 2 were awesome movies and so was xmen 1 and two but three of course was horrible,but as fare as spiderman goes,only the second one was any good at all.the first and third looked like they were written by a 5 year old,people just dont want to get past the fact that a spiderman movie was finally made and put on to the screen to see how horribly made that movie REALLY was. and before the nolan batman movies,Batman Forever was the ONLY half way decent batman movie made of the four cause val kilmer made a MUCH better bruce wayne and at least looked the part and did not kill people in cowardly ways like those pathetic burton batman movies did.

Holy crap did you hit your head? Batman forever totally sucked ass and Batman and Robin was even worse.

Dont think so, Nolan and Bale seem to have their heads on straight. But it wont probably be as good as TDK but better then first movie.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah kinda makes you wonder.

this post is HALF correct

.yes superman 1 and 2 were awesome movies and so was xmen 1 and two but three of course was horrible,but as fare as spiderman goes,only the second one was any good at all.the first and third looked like they were written by a 5 year old,people just dont want to get past the fact that a spiderman movie was finally made and put on to the screen to see how horribly made that movie REALLY was. and before the nolan batman movies,Batman Forever was the ONLY half way decent batman movie made of the four cause val kilmer made a MUCH better bruce wayne and at least looked the part and did not kill people in cowardly ways like those pathetic burton batman movies did.

Actually spiderman 1 was really good. i also liked xmen3. xmen 1 puked. '89 batman was the sh*t. a classic in it's own right and the best batman outta the 80's and 90's ones.

I will never understand how you fail to see that, Mr. Parker.

Some people just have bad taste. It's all a matter of opinion but I do remember Mr.Parker praising the god-awful Elektra movie. Saying it was "made for adults" or some bullshit like that. It's a waste of time arguing w/him

i think that there are two very good reasons that the third batman will not be sucky.

a ) christopher nolan. he writes the screenplay, he directs the film. christopher nolan has not put out a bad movie yet, and it seems to be that the batman trilogy is his baby.

b ) the cast. even thought we know two [maybe three] of the actors. christian bale, michael caine, and very most probably gary oldman. all three are brilliant actors and they care about the movies they're in. *ahem see christian bale breakout on terminator three.*

i think the third will be brilliant, as anything nolan touches is brilliant.

Maybe Bats 3 should take ideas from Arkham Asylam and Batman 89.

The stealthy, secret, detective Batman.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Actually spiderman 1 was really good. i also liked xmen3. xmen 1 puked. '89 batman was the sh*t. a classic in it's own right and the best batman outta the 80's and 90's ones.

I will never understand how you fail to see that, Mr. Parker.

Well since TDK sucked i.m.o...i think the third movie will actually be good, i thought the first movie was great and hopefully he wont make the same mistakes as the second one.

Those last to posts just prove that it all boils down to opinion and taste.
IMO spiderman 3 was the worst of them all but i didn't really care for any of them. (mainly cause i can't stand Dunst) the best casting was with JJJ.
And saying TDK sucked?? Holy crap dude... it should of been up for best picture IMO, but for some people if there is a lot of hype around a movie then you can come out disapointed.
But this is coming from me and i thought GI JOE was the best most entertaining movie of the year next to star trek but Transformers 2 sucked big time.

Originally posted by starlock
Well since TDK sucked i.m.o...i think the third movie will actually be good, i thought the first movie was great and hopefully he wont make the same mistakes as the second one.

Pray tell, why did The Dark Knight suck? I.Y.O?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Spiderman 1 was bad. 3 is better than 1.

ok, well, that's your opinon and I say pt. 1 is a classic.

but just outta curiosity how was spiderman 1 "bad"? (to you)

Originally posted by steverules_2
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?

I also recently have a feeling that Batman 3 will suck. All the threequels you've mentioned sucked for a reason.

-Batman Forever sucked because Tim Burton left.
-Superman 3 sucked because Richard Donner left.
-X-Men 3 sucked because Bryan Singer left.
-Spider-Man 3 sucked because Raimi was forced to use Venom instead of what he planned for Spidey.
-I don't know why Blade: Trinity sucked.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I also recently have a feeling that Batman 3 will suck. All the threequels you've mentioned sucked for a reason.

-Batman Forever sucked because Tim Burton left.
-Superman 3 sucked because Richard Donner left.
-X-Men 3 sucked because Bryan Singer left.
-Spider-Man 3 sucked because Raimi was forced to use Venom instead of what he planned for Spidey.
-I don't know why Blade: Trinity sucked.

These movies sucked for a reason. There was something that interviened in their way (As I said, I don't know what happened with Blade). Nolan's Batman now also has a problem that interviened: Ledger's Death!! Nolan had plans for Joker but now his plans have been canceled due to Ledger's death. If he recasts the Joker, the new actor would either copy Ledger or act different. If he copies Ledger, people will complain that he copies Ledger. If he acts different, people will complain that he's not copying Ledger. In other words, Nolan can't include the Joker in B3 no matter what he does. This means that whatever he had planned for Batman has now been canceled. Whenever a movie director (or a book author, or manga author, or TV author) has to completely change their ending or their future plans for a series, then the series would most likely go down. Two perfect examples are Spider-Man 3 and Naruto. Sam Raimi has canceled ALMOST all of his plans for the future due to not being allowed to do whatever he wants. He had an idea to set up the Sinister Six by introducing Vulture and doing a proper Sandman. That idea can't work anymore because you only have 2 more movies to introduce the other 4 members and Sandman is now a good guy. Plus, Raimi can only use 2 villains in every SM movie from now (except 6) and one of them will be Lizard. I don't see how you could squeeze in 4 more big villains. Now you have 2 movies to introduce 5 villains (Sandman is obviously a good guy )and I don't see that being possible.

Masashi Kishimoto originally planned to leave Kakashim Shizune, and everyone else dead (they got killed during the Invasion of Pain arc) but he got a lot of hate mail because he killed all those characters so he used a stupid excuse (read the manga to find out what it was) and they were all brought back to life. It was menat to happen for all those characters to die but he gave into fan pressure and changed his ending. I thought it would have been better if the story arc ended with those characters being dead (not because I hate them; I like all of them a lot) but because it would have been better than that stupid excuse that brought them back to life.

Avatar is another example. Book Three was originally supposed to end with Aang accepting that he has to kill the Fire Lord but the producer was forced to change the ending due to the show being intended for children and no one could die. The ending was changed into Aang learning how to take away the Fire Lord's fire bending. What's so bad about that? I don't feel like explaining because I will give a long explanation but go on YouTube and watch blowshimselfupdude's review of Avatar: Book Three and you will understand why the ending didn't work.

Overall, I think people here get my point. However, there are some small chances that it won't suck. Only superhero movies have bad 3rd movies. Movies that are not adaptations of superhero comics have good 3rd movies (Lord of the Rings 3, Bourne Ultimatum, Pirates: At World's End, Friday the 13 Pt. 3, Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban, etc.). I'm not sure about other Batman fans but to me, BB and TDK didn't feel like superhero movies. When I watched Spider-Man, Blade, X-Men, Superman, Hellboy, etc. I felt like I was watching a movie about a superhero defending the world from a villain. When I saw BB and TDK, I felt like I watched a movie about a man in a batsuit trying to do good by saving a city from corruption and madness. One of the reasons why TDK is the best superhero movie is that it's realistic and it feels like it could actually happen. It doesn't feel like a superhero movie and I like that. I think every Marvel/DC frachise should treat their heroes like this. I don't mean them being realistic like batman and dark like batman. What I mean by that is..for example, I don't want to hear someone call Tony Stark Iron Man in IM2 but to be called something else like how Batman was called a protector by Gordon in TDK. I know that's a small example but I think you get my point here. Nolan's franchise doesn't feel like a superhero franchise but it feels as more than just that and only superhero movies seem to have the 3rd movie curse and movies that are not superhero movies have good 3rd movies.

Overall there is a chance that it might suck but there is also a chance that it won't suck.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
ok, well, that's your opinon and I say pt. 1 is a classic.

but just outta curiosity how was spiderman 1 "bad"? (to you)

Also, that "up up and away web" scene, that was absolutely horrible. So was when the thief fell down, but not as bad.

I would say it was a classic, and it's not exactly horrible, but it's not so good.