Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by JacksonArcher, Oct 27, 2010.
No, CGI is evil, it looks so fake and ruins most movies.
They've already selected their villains: Bane, Catwoman to an extent and possibly Talia if the Miranda Tate character turns out to be her and maybe even Ras himself, so any character speculation discussions you missed out on in this thread you should probably go back 30 to 50 pages or so.
Great, i'm always a day late and a dollar short...
Haha Sorry...'them the breaks kid...'
They do need new villains, but the only villains you mention in this list that have actually been 'done' are Two Face and Scarecrow.
All they needed for the next film were villains that hadn't been dealt with in Nolan's movies - and there's something to be said for giving Nolan versions of pretty familiar, top-tier villains like Catwoman - something The Dark Knight kinda sorta proved with his take on the Joker.
Harley Quinn is both great and kind of pointless without the Joker. And the Joker, of course, has been done, like Two-Face and Scarecrow, and need not be something the Nolan franchise returns to.
That said I think we'll next see the Joker whenever - or if-ever - the Batman film franchise reboots itself. He's one of the elements most likely to recur in any given incarnation of the Batman character.
Warner Bros is already planning to reboot the franchise after "The Dark Knight Rises" is finished. This was announced months ago.
The old ways of the 70's and so were far more enjoyable then the fake CGI they use now, least in my opinion.
Special effects are special effects. Bad CGI is today's wires on models. Granted, the latter has a kind of charm to it but only when looking back through rose coloured spectacles.
I was thinking more of the Brandon Lee/The Crow approach of bringing Heath's Joker back, but I doubt there's that much additional content that was scrapped from TDK to make into something new for TDKR.
The best CGI is the kind you don't even notice as computer generated imagery, in my opinion.
Used judiciously and appropriately, CGI isn't a liability at all. While not perfect, the LOTR films found a reasonable balance. Problem is, CGI has become an avenue for lazy film making -- with directors opting for CGI when miniatures or physical sets would provide better results (see the hallway sequence in Inception for an example of how to realize fantastic visuals without the crutch of CGI) . Nolan's Batman films have done a laudable job of appropriately using CGI.
True. In fact, the best special effects are the ones you don't notice as special effects.
I don't think Nolan would consider using a CGI technique like that to "bring back a past character". From what I've read of his directorial style that doesn't seem like his modus operandi.
Not necessarily. In my opinion there's just as much to be said for FX that flawlessly create something that couldn't possibly exist in reality. In this case there's the burden of having viewers look at something very critically, fully aware that it has to be an FX shot. Achieving a completely believable effect under that close scrutiny is just as much a great achievement as flawless FX shots the viewer is unaware of (usually because they're FX shots to extend or replicate something that could exist in reality, but which would cost more to shoot entirely practically).
....wait, is that kind of a mega-spoiler?
Uh no. There's an entire thread on this very subject when it was announced. Also Christopher Nolan will remain as Executive Producer on the reboot.
Harley would be cool. All I know of her is the Birds of Prey Box Set. So, I can see her totally being relevant without the Joker, because I've never seen her with him. If they really wanted to cast a Moratorium on the Joker, they open with a scene of a death, maybe even from a distance, and that's the Joker dying, and Harley wants revenge, if you need to justify her without the Joker (Maybe?). A Trilogy would be about 8-10 years, so there's your 10 year Moratorium.
Harley was certainly possible. She's just a Goddamn Joker fangirl. There's no logical reason she ever needed to even meet him, let alone be his sidekick. No, I don't like Harley Quinn very much. Worst kind of character. Subordinate distaff counterpart? Check. Blatant fanservice? You bet. Annoying, overblown regional accent? Believe it. Assumption the audience will ignore the fact that she's a complete monster because she's cute? Oh, you know it. Incapable of actual long-term growth? I'll grant I've not read 90% of Harley Quinn's appearances, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say DOUBLE-CHECK.
God, I just realized how crowded this movie is going to likely be. It's like they never, ever learn.
I hope it's more of a recast than a reboot. However, I look forward to a Batman movie that isn't too embarrassed to be a Batman movie.
Indeed. I want to see Batman do something ridiculous.
Not, like, Batman and Robin ridiculous. But something that's not afraid to be unrealistic or off-the-wall, as opposed to the "no, he's totally realistic, because we used moody cinematography and obliquely referenced 9/11" villainy of the Joker.
Is Wolfgang Petersen still alive?
Separate names with a comma.