Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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 don't think it will, but i will wait until after i see it

There's no way it'll be able to live up to the hype its gonna recieve. But who knows if it'll suck or not.

There was loadsa hype for spiderman 3 and look how that turned out

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
There's no way it'll be able to live up to the hype its gonna recieve. But who knows if it'll suck or not.

ITA

Originally posted by steverules_2
There was loadsa hype for spiderman 3 and look how that turned out


True, but don't put Batman 3 in the same category just yet

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.

If it sucks then I'm sure that chances are batman will be far from detective

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

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
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 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.

I remember when batman was detective comics but we never really get to see a detective batman in the movies

Originally posted by steverules_2
I remember when batman was detective comics but we never really get to see a detective batman in the movies

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.

Originally posted by steverules_2
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

It was Rater who did X-men 3 not Superman Returns....

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
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.

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.

Originally posted by Placidity


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.

Which is precisly the reason Riddler is the essential choice for villain in the third film.

We seen Nolan's Batman born.

We seen Nolan's Batman face his most dangerous nemesis.

We now need to see Nolan's Batman be challenge in the Brain department by his most dangerous smartest villain.




On the same note.

A Youtuber made a fan-made trailer which pretty much hits it right on the head of the nail.

tLf1XXXeHrM

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.

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
Which is precisly the reason Riddler is the essential choice for villain in the third film.

We seen Nolan's Batman born.

We seen Nolan's Batman face his most dangerous nemesis.

We now need to see Nolan's Batman be challenge in the Brain department by his most dangerous smartest villain.




On the same note.

A Youtuber made a fan-made trailer which pretty much hits it right on the head of the nail.

tLf1XXXeHrM


Originally posted by darthmaul1
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.

ITA, but i hope the title is Shadow of the Bat though

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)

Originally posted by Kazenji
It was Rater who did X-men 3 not Superman Returns....

I'm getting mixed up, yeah Ratner did X3 and Bryan Singer did X1 and 2 and then Superman returns

Originally posted by Placidity
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.

He found a fingerprint

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 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. Spiderman 1 was bad. 3 is better than 1.

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) The dialogue was really stupid. How many times does it have to say "with great power comes great responsibilty"?

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.

Plus, I thought Batman Forever, SM3, and X-3 were average. If the 3rd movie will have the 3rd movie curse, then it will probably be average or will probably still be good but just not as good as the first two so even if it does have the 3rd movie suckage, then there's no way it would be bad. It will be average or higher. There's no way it will be below average.

The thief falling down was horrible? (kinda)? How'd you want him to fall..He tripped and fell out the window and his ticket was cancelled..wanted more?

It's a comin book movie. What'd you expect Oscar caliber perfomances?

The movie was a great comic book movie. (imo)

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
-Batman Forever sucked because Tim Burton left.
Actually, Tim Burton had some involvement with it, just he wasn't the head director like he was the previous two movies. That's why Forever didn't such as much as Batman & Robin, where Burton had completely left the picture by then..

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
The thief falling down was horrible? (kinda)? How'd you want him to fall..He tripped and fell out the window and his ticket was cancelled..wanted more?

It's a comin book movie. What'd you expect Oscar caliber perfomances?

The movie was a great comic book movie. (imo) He...tripped.

And over all, the film was pretty boring.

Originally posted by Quincy
Pray tell, why did The Dark Knight suck? I.Y.O?
Dunno how I missed your post earlier, but he's never explained that really, or why he thought Ledger's acting was "subpar".. He also loved X-Men Origins Wolverine () apparently based on a post I saw earlier in the X-Men forum. Says a lot about his taste in comic movies. I agree with him though in that the Two-Face scenes were the best parts in the movie.

I think that they have a lot to live up to because TDK was so damn good. They can only go down from that.

Agreed. Some can say it sucks, call it overrated, etc. all they want, but from how well it's done, it's arguably the best movie of the decade, just as how Titanic was pretty much the best of its decade.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
He also loved X-Men Origins Wolverine (

Yeah well i too liked that movie but i would'nt say its one of the greatest movies it does have its flaws.

I don't see how anyone could like that movie if they saw the three X-Men films before that, but to each his own I guess.

Plus, like many, I'm getting tired of Jackman's Wolverine by now, but I digress.

Wolverine sucks. You have to be an idiot to like it.

Then again, I wasn't much of an X-fan.

DC all the way.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Agreed. Some can say it sucks, call it overrated, etc. all they want, but from how well it's done, it's arguably the best movie of the decade, just as how Titanic was pretty much the best of its decade.

Titanic was NOT the best movie of the decade, i saw it once and enjoyed it but have no desire to see it again.
The best movies of that decade would have to be Braveheart, silence of the lambs, terminator 2, the matrix, The phantom menace, hunt for red october, the fugitive, shawshank redemption, schinlers list.
I put some entertainment movies in there too. the only reason it did so good at the box office is because every 11-17 year old girl went to see it 10 times because Leo was the hot ticket.

Hence why I said "pretty much", as to not imply it was the best of the decade.

wow...


I do not and can not believe that the third Batman film will s^ck..

it will only s^ck to those who do not like the character....

Chris Nolan and crew know what it takes to make a great movie and i for one looks forward to seeing this most likely as much as i have tdk

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Actually, Tim Burton had some involvement with it, just he wasn't the head director like he was the previous two movies. That's why Forever didn't such as much as Batman & Robin, where Burton had completely left the picture by then..

He had SOME involvement. It's the same thing as Sam Raimi and Spider-Man 3. If he was the head director and had 100% involvement, it would have been better. I thought BF was good but just not as good as the first two.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
I don't see how anyone could like that movie if they saw the three X-Men films before that, but to each his own I guess.


Well guess what i have seen those 3 X-Men movies

Originally posted by lord xyz


Then again, I wasn't much of an X-fan.

DC all the way.

Each to their own i guess

I like bit of both myself DC and Marvel.

Marvel has better characters & the balls to put out movies for characters that aren't super-famous like IronMan & Blade. DC seems to wanna stick to Bats(DCs REAL icon) &Supes. I hear there's a J.Hex movie being made, that could &should be great.

Doubt it unless Nolan isn't at the helm of it. Otherwise, I think it'll be a great film.

Originally posted by I-Drop
Marvel has better characters & the balls to put out movies for characters that aren't super-famous like IronMan & Blade. DC seems to wanna stick to Bats(DCs REAL icon) &Supes. I hear there's a J.Hex movie being made, that could &should be great.


While I agree with Blade. IronMan is a pretty big deal in the Marvel Universe....Just sayin...You could have mentioned Ghost Rider...

I would have but it was a horrible movie.

Originally posted by I-Drop
I would have but it was a horrible movie.

True. However, IronMan is still a pretty big name in the Marvel Universe.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
True. However, IronMan is still a pretty big name in the Marvel Universe. I guess. He's not to Marvel what Supes or Bats are to DC though.

Originally posted by I-Drop
I guess. He's not to Marvel what Supes or Bats are to DC though.


Well who is? Aside Spiderman of course? I dont even think the X Men are in the same league as Supes or Batman. Both did soo much for comics as a whole, not just DC. The only Marvel character that can even come close is Spiderman.

Originally posted by I-Drop
I would have but it was a horrible movie.

Theres a sequal coming and it seems they're going about it alot better then the first one.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Theres a sequal coming and it seems they're going about it alot better then the first one.


Would'nt a complete reboot be a better way to go about it?

Originally posted by Kazenji
Theres a sequal coming and it seems they're going about it alot better then the first one.
That's probably just what hype wants you to think about it..

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Would'nt a complete reboot be a better way to go about it?
Like what they did with Hulk? I dunno... Then again, I liked the first Hulk movie a lot better than the 2008 one. Tim Roth kinda ruined the latter for me, in a way. He's just not really that good an actor IMO, though at least he didn't have anything to do with the Abomination's horrible one-liners, but the part where Hulk kicked him into a tree was still probably the best part of the movie.

If Nolan helms it, it will be good. Simple as that for me; I have faith in the man.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
That's probably just what hype wants you to think about it..


Like what they did with Hulk? I dunno... Then again, I liked the first Hulk movie a lot better than the 2008 one. Tim Roth kinda ruined the latter for me, in a way. He's just not really that good an actor IMO, though at least he didn't have anything to do with the Abomination's horrible one-liners, but the part where Hulk kicked him into a tree was still probably the best part of the movie.

Hrmm...I thought the 2008 Hulk was much better than the previous one.

Out of curiosity, why?

It was alot more exciting in my eyes. The first one didnt really satisfy me in the action department. I know its a really shallow view, but its just my opinion.

Eh, okay. Fair enough I guess.
shrug

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
It was alot more exciting in my eyes. The first one didnt really satisfy me in the action department. I know its a really shallow view, but its just my opinion. It's mine too. It was waay better. Abom>>>absorbing dadOriginally posted by Kazenji
Theres a sequal coming and it seems they're going about it alot better then the first one. I hope so. GR's one of the best

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Out of curiosity, why?
One name Nick Nolte
That made the movie suck right there, he looked as if they just pulled him out of jail.

I really like the 2nd hulk movie better, and how they made it as if the first one never happened cause the girlfriend had never seen him change..

You know, when I first saw Batman Forever, I thought it was really good. It also seemed more my audience since I was a little kid when I watched it, and the first two were more adult.

And looking back, it's still an okay film, and even though it's not as good as the other two, it's still a good film.

It's like T3, not as good as the first two at all, but still an okay film, so there's no doubt in my mind Nolan's third Batman film will "suck".

I actually meant to say Won't suck. haermm

How's that for a **** up?

Oh, okay. That's a different story then.
xD

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
At least the latter of the two didn't have nothing but horrible one-liners.The latter of the 2 had NOTHING but a lame fight w/a lame ending though. I'll have the one-liners please.

The ending of the 2008 Hulk definitely wasn't any different than that. Lame.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Although it can be said that 2008 only happened because the other one was so god-awful they had to erase it

Back to Batman 3
if Nolan and the rest of the people involved return, and they take their time like 3 years or more and produce a good script and characters then it won't suck (i hope)
That is the problem with Hollywood they want to make money so quickly and punch crap out even quicker (transformers 2)

Batman 3 will at least be good. No way will it suck.

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. you just got to get past the fact that spiderman was finally brought to the big screen,WHEN you do that,you can see how horribly written it was and that it looked like it was written by a five year old.some people just wont do that though.

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.

you kidding,Burton is a bigger moron of a batman director than schumacher was.Batman Forever at least cast someone who looked the part of bruce wayne.

This is ****ing retarded.

Keaton didn't look like how I imagine Bruce Wayne, therefore the whole films sucked hard, and are abominations. Forget the brilliant story, the great dialogue and fantastic interpretation, the most important thing is how I imagine Bruce Wayne to look like.

Batman Forever though, great film. Val Kilmer is a way better Batman because of how he looks, and that's all that matters.

"I made you, but you made me first."
Lines sucked because Keaton sucks as Batman

"Chicks love the car"
Pretty cheesy, but hey, he looks like Batman, and is waaaay better than the Burton films.

Tard doesn't even realise Burton did most of Batman Forever before he left, and had Joel Schumacker done all of it, it would've been like Batman and Robin.

Originally posted by lord xyz
This is ****ing retarded.

Keaton didn't look like how I imagine Bruce Wayne, therefore the whole films sucked hard, and are abominations. Forget the brilliant story, the great dialogue and fantastic interpretation, the most important thing is how I imagine Bruce Wayne to look like.

Batman Forever though, great film. Val Kilmer is a way better Batman because of how he looks, and that's all that matters.

"I made you, but you made me first."
Lines sucked because Keaton sucks as Batman

"Chicks love the car"
Pretty cheesy, but hey, he looks like Batman, and is waaaay better than the Burton films.

Tard doesn't even realise Burton did most of Batman Forever before he left, and had Joel Schumacker done all of it, it would've been like Batman and Robin.

OMG, Batman Forever totally blew chunks, and Val Kilmer ( i do like him but he wasn't a good batman). 2face threatens people at the party unless batman reveals himself, and bruce stands up right away and says he is batman (but no one could hear him any way) what a joke.

Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.

He has a sarcasm detector? Who new?

Originally posted by lord xyz


Batman Forever though, great film. Val Kilmer is a way better Batman because of how he looks, and that's all that matters.



Well I don't know if I'd call Batman Forever a great film , but certainly a a movie I remember fondly and with a lota fun and good memeories. Sure it was silly , But that was kinda where Waners was going with the character after the grim and Dark 'Batman Returns'. I think Kilmer did a pretty good job considering it was a hamfisted and 'one linner' kinda movie.

He's always been a great , slightly 'under the radar' kinda actor , which is always why I'll wonder what it would have been like had Kilmer been in a great , high brow and more straightlaced Batman movie.

Well he was good enough to not be in B&R.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well he was good enough to not be in B&R.



????

Originally posted by darthmaul1
and bruce stands up right away and says he is batman (but no one could hear him any way) what a joke.
IMO, at least that's not as bad as Batman telling Dent that he's gonna turn himself in but then just standing there during the press conference and not doing so.

Do we have too bad mouth one film to make another look good? Let's be better than that folks.

Well I'm not saying TDK is bad because of that or anything (nor do I think Batman Forever is great). Just that each actor of Batman (even Bale aside from the voice) has its flaws.

Well I can't speak for everybody but any minior flaws that the new Batman films have had , really pale in comparrison to there quality and sucess as great films. I for one have been waiting a long time for great Batman movies and intended to enjoy them as long as they last.


Batman Forever has a lota great memories for me and is a fun romp with many good things about it , but it does'nt even messure when compared to Chris Nolan's Batman movies.

Agreed. The best part of Batman Forever IMO was probably when he shielded himself from the fire with his cape's technology and then made that dramatic appearance by running out of the fire when Two-Face and his thugs were celebrating.. but then getting buried in sand right afterward ruined that moment.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Agreed. The best part of Batman Forever IMO was probably when he shielded himself from the fire with his cape's technology and then made that dramatic appearance by running out of the fire when Two-Face and his thugs were celebrating..

Yeah that was pretty cool. I remember first seeing that with friends who were like "Oh cool! Batman has a thermal cape!!" when that scene came on the screen.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
IMO, at least that's not as bad as Batman telling Dent that he's gonna turn himself in but then just standing there during the press conference and not doing so.

didn't they plan to do that anyway?
and Batman can never do that cause of what he stands for and everyone knows that.

Originally posted by jayce78
Yeah that was pretty cool. I remember first seeing that with friends who were like "Oh cool! Batman has a thermal cape!!" when that scene came on the screen.
lol Yeah, and the music played during that triumphant moment (well, temporary triumphant moment anyway ).

Originally posted by darthmaul1
didn't they plan to do that anyway?
Nah. Dent thought Batman was actually gonna go through with it at first, but then when he looked around after talking some at the press conference and realized Bats wasn't really gonna show up, he decided to claim himself to be the Batman and took himself into custody so it wouldn't look like he was lying to the people of Gotham when he said beforehand that Batman would turn himself in.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
and Batman can never do that cause of what he stands for and everyone knows that.
Well, that's true, but saying he was going to and then changing his mind at the last minute was still kind of a dick thing to do, which put Harvey's reputation at stake before he even became Two-Face..

I personally hope Bale's Batman doesn't show such indecisiveness like that again.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
lol Yeah, and the music played during that triumphant moment (well, temporary triumphant moment anyway ).


Nah. Dent thought Batman was actually gonna go through with it at first, but then when he looked around after talking some at the press conference and realized Bats wasn't really gonna show up, he decided to claim himself to be the Batman and took himself into custody so it wouldn't look like he was lying to the people of Gotham when he said beforehand that Batman would turn himself in.


Well, that's true, but saying he was going to and then changing his mind at the last minute was still kind of a dick thing to do, which put Harvey's reputation at stake before he even became Two-Face..

I personally hope Bale's Batman doesn't show such indecisiveness like that again.

I guess it's a matter of opinion or how you want to interpret it.

I got the feeling that Batman planned something with Gordan and Dent was either the bait or was sorta in on it or something? Mabie I got it wrong?

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
IMO, at least that's not as bad as Batman telling Dent that he's gonna turn himself in but then just standing there during the press conference and not doing so.

he was ready to go up and blurt the secret, you could see that he had stood straighter and was arranging his suit, and he even took a step forward, but then dent realized : if i let this happen, then batman will never be able to do good again. that's why he told the press he was batman, i think. i always thought that he had planned that press conference for the purpose of throwing people off-track, but obviously bruce didn't know that...

ETA: for a moment there when i first watched it, i thought that scene was going to be an "i am spartacus" moment, with harvey making some sort of comment about how there's a bit of batman in everyone, as long as the solo dude was doing his stuff, everyone had the hope of batman in their hearts.

but then it happened how it did, and i saw the "i am spartacus" deal as waaay too cheesy for nolan to pull out in the middle of the film.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
he was ready to go up and blurt the secret, you could see that he had stood straighter and was arranging his suit, and he even took a step forward, but then dent realized : if i let this happen, then batman will never be able to do good again. that's why he told the press he was batman, i think. i always thought that he had planned that press conference for the purpose of throwing people off-track, but obviously bruce didn't know that...

ETA: for a moment there when i first watched it, i thought that scene was going to be an "i am spartacus" moment, with harvey making some sort of comment about how there's a bit of batman in everyone, as long as the solo dude was doing his stuff, everyone had the hope of batman in their hearts.

but then it happened how it did, and i saw the "i am spartacus" deal as waaay too cheesy for nolan to pull out in the middle of the film.

I was thinking that too, didn't they do that in another movie? (besides spartacus)
Maybe im thinking of Spiderman 2 with him on the train and everyone standing up for him.

You're gonna have to get past me and me and me and her and him , and the cleaning lady and that guy over there with the mustache . . . .









Yeah , that's a classic stand up to a bully thing we've seen in cinema a dozen time.

The way Ock responded to that shit was an instant classic though

Just moved them all aside with sheer ease and KO's spiderman Spiderman 2.1 = Total win

Hell yeah. It's funny that they were actually stupid enough to believe Ock would be intimidated. He's got four very strong metallic tentacles and he's going to be scared by a bunch of average people? Yeah, sure.

Originally posted by Davis Bloome
Hell yeah. It's funny that they were actually stupid enough to believe Ock would be intimidated. He's got four very strong metallic tentacles and he's going to be scared by a bunch of average people? Yeah, sure.

Spiderman just saved all their lives, I can see why they'd stand up for him, what they did was good...but it would never be enough to stop Ock

And TBH no one really knew Ock or what he was capable of in the movie, I think they may have underestimated him

God I hope not because I really liked this Batman series then the other series that I grew up with and it caused me to be a Batman fan once agian.
I only hope they take thier time and not rush it like many other Super Hero movies did in the past I.E X3 and Spider-Man 3.

Well there was superman 3 which sucked, blade trinity sucked, Batman forever again not so good, but with Nolan directing I'm hoping a good 3rd comic book movie can be made

Originally posted by steverules_2
Well there was superman 3 which sucked, blade trinity sucked, Batman forever again not so good, but with Nolan directing I'm hoping a good 3rd comic book movie can be made

yeah I have a feeling with Nolan directing it wont suffer the same fate of superman 3,Blade trinity,or x men 3 especially since Nolan redeemed that crapfest Burton/Schumacher franchise Batman movies and FINALLY gave us a great Batman movie to enjoy.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah I have a feeling with Nolan directing it wont suffer the same fate of superman 3,Blade trinity,or x men 3 especially since Nolan redeemed that crapfest Burton/Schumacher franchise Batman movies and FINALLY gave us a great Batman movie to enjoy.


I actually think the 89 batman is the best one
but I have a feeling that Nolan is going to take his time with b3

As long as WB doesn't start looking over Nolan's shoulder and tell him that he needs to put in a scene like this or like that, or put in this character when Nolan doesn't want it, I think we'll get a good third superhero movie. The only thing that could prevent us from getting a stellar superhero trilogy, and keeping the curse of the weak 3rd superhero movie alive, is studio interference. So stay the hell out of Nolan's way WB.

Spider-Man 3 should serve as a cautionary tale as to what happens when the studio doesn't let the director make his own movie. After that I will never trust Sony again. I hope WB doesn't make me do the same.

X-Men 3 is another example of the third superhero movie not being on par with the first two due to studio interference.

i think he can pull it off and as for spiderman 3 if the man doesent want venom dont make him have venom