A Place For Batman Sequel Talk

thec0l0rsblend wrote:I'm surprised Nolan is coming back at all, tbh. TDK's success was a perfect storm of factors that aren't likely to be repeated. A third movie, irrespective of how successful it might be, can only be considered a disappointment compared to TDK's numbers.

Also, the specter of Ledger looms. My own opinions of that portrayal of the Joker aside, the next guy (no matter what villain he plays) will be fighting an uphill battle to make audiences look beyond Ledger.

Christian Bale already phoned it in on TDK and, because of other factors, didn't really get called on it. If he does it again for Nolan III, I doubt he'll be so lucky.

As Nolan himself put it, how many third entries in a film franchise are really all that good? For every Last Crusade, there's at least one Godfather III.

Given the above, I only ever saw where Nolan stood to lose on doing a third one.

But since he is coming back and since the choice of solid villains who can carry the threat level of a film which fit into Nolan's universe is pretty slim pickings, my guess is that we'll either see another mobster'ish type of villain like Blackmask (y'know, because we haven't seen enough of those types of characters yet) or else a "reimagined" character like the Riddler (something more along the lines of the Zodiac killer perhaps, sending cyphers and puzzles to the media and whatnot). I can't imagine Nolan would invent a new villain as the A-threat. Not for a third movie anyway.

Honestly, the way Nolan talks about this being an "ending" (not just a finale), I wonder that he plans to kill Batman off in #3. Would WB permit that? Given that TDK hit a billion worldwide, the better question is dare they refuse? If I'm right and assuming Stevearchangel's remarks have any basis in fact, that could be the mess he's referring to.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:I'm surprised Nolan is coming back at all, tbh. TDK's success was a perfect storm of factors that aren't likely to be repeated. A third movie, irrespective of how successful it might be, can only be considered a disappointment compared to TDK's numbers.

Also, the specter of Ledger looms. My own opinions of that portrayal of the Joker aside, the next guy (no matter what villain he plays) will be fighting an uphill battle to make audiences look beyond Ledger.

Christian Bale already phoned it in on TDK and, because of other factors, didn't really get called on it. If he does it again for Nolan III, I doubt he'll be so lucky.

As Nolan himself put it, how many third entries in a film franchise are really all that good? For every Last Crusade, there's at least one Godfather III.

Given the above, I only ever saw where Nolan stood to lose on doing a third one.

But since he is coming back and since the choice of solid villains who can carry the threat level of a film which fit into Nolan's universe is pretty slim pickings, my guess is that we'll either see another mobster'ish type of villain like Blackmask (y'know, because we haven't seen enough of those types of characters yet) or else a "reimagined" character like the Riddler (something more along the lines of the Zodiac killer perhaps, sending cyphers and puzzles to the media and whatnot). I can't imagine Nolan would invent a new villain as the A-threat. Not for a third movie anyway.

Honestly, the way Nolan talks about this being an "ending" (not just a finale), I wonder that he plans to kill Batman off in #3. Would WB permit that? Given that TDK hit a billion worldwide, the better question is dare they refuse? If I'm right and assuming Stevearchangel's remarks have any basis in fact, that could be the mess he's referring to.

No. What I read had you believe he was killed along with the villain but there was no actual body ever found.

thec0l0rsblend wrote:The Dark Knight rises? Is he a cake now, what the hell?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thec0l0rsblend wrote:The Dark Knight rises? Is he a cake now, what the hell?

Could be some kind of epic Bat-Zombie movie, where Bruce dies of quick-onset AIDS, then "rises" from his grave to combat crime as "The Dark Zombie- Batman!".

*GROAN*

non_amos wrote:Whatever happened to the FANTASY aspects of these films? I know I said it before but when I looked in a TV Guide back in the 80's they had SUPERMAN: the MOVIE listed as 'Fantasy' as far as it's genre went. And that was fine. So what?! I mean, ain't films still supposed to be an escape for us? If I want to see real life all the time, I'll just go to work, blah blah blah! Do you dig what I'm saying? Thanks a lot, Mr. Nolan!
Original URL- https://supermanfilmwatchdog.forumcanadien.org/t775-booster-gold-potential-series

thecolorsblend wrote:And since we're here, and since I'm bagging on Jett/Bill Ramey, I'm going to out his source. Emma Thomas. She's the one who has supplied him with most of his scoops over the years. The franchise is coming to an end, the promise I made to someone has (mostly) been fulfilled and so we can put this out there now. Ramey's scoops tended to be more accurate than a lot of other web pages. Wanna know why? Emma. She sent him all his information. He frequently knew more than he was telling. She would send him the "approved" stuff for release and then, should anyone dissent, offer "suggestions" as talking points to ameliorate their concerns. "Well, yeah, the Joker is wearing makeup but there's a specific reason for that and the movie will (somewhat) address it".

When your source is that close to the top I'm sorry but you have no right to market yourself as "just another fansite". Ramey has done that for years. And for a lot of those years, it was basically true. But the minute the BB production cozied up to him (oh, you thought he scored face time with Chris Nolan himself out of charity?), his "independence" keeled over and died. In fact, in his own way, he became every bit as authoritarian and tyrannical as the Eunuch. Maybe more so. ANY divergence from the party line resulted in a ban. How do I know? Because it fucking happened to me.

When it looked like Justice League Mortal was a go, there was a lot of controversy about it happening in the midst of the Nolan and Singer movies. It came out that Nolan was NOT happy about goings on with any JLA movie, particularly one that revolved around a plot involving Brother Eye, Talia al-Ghul, etc. Come to find out there was a half ass Brother Eye in TDK. So it made sense.

Because of the above, there was speculation that Nolan just might depart the franchise and Ramey started a thread in the forum asking whether fans would be okay with that. Whether he was asking out of idle curiosity or in his capacity as Nolan's bitch is anybody's guess (and yet another indication that he became too close to the producers and filmmakers). Well, then as now, I had no love for or loyalty to the Nolanverse. Plus, it was rumored at the time (credibly, I thought) that Tom Welling might headline JLA as Superman. And, as has been observed, the mere existence of JLA was unofficial confirmation that Singerman 2- Bartender of Steel was never happening. So, as you can imagine, a JLA movie affecting all of the above suited my agenda pretty well. And I said so.

And I was banned. Ramey solicited opinions from all his members. I gave mine without violating his TOS. And I got banned. And again, this brings into question whether or not he was too close to producers and filmmakers at the expense of his own independence. Did he ban me because he's just a jerk? Or did he ban me in his office of Chris Nolan's proctologist?

Well, we'll never know, now will we?

And once again, I don't begrudge the fact of all this. If I were in the same position as Bill Ramey, the Eunuch or Craig Byrne, as I've said many times, I'd sell out so fast it'd make your head spin. BUT. But the one thing I wouldn't do is make any pretense toward being an independent fansite anymore. Because I wouldn't be. I'd be serving paymasters. I'd be getting money (or scoops or access or early screenings or whatever other goodies) in exchange for services rendered (favorable coverage, glowing reviews, suppression of dissent, all that shit). As this is only a forum, it's unlikely Puncher will ever be approached about any type of relationship with Snyder and co. And if it were to happen, it would be Puncher (not me) who gets the goodies out of all that. So I doubt I'll ever have a chance to put my money where my mouth is. But this shit nowadays where production companies and movie studios cozy up to fan webpages and essentially assimilate them into the marketing arm of their operation disturbs me because of the lack of transparency. With shill magazines, you know what you're getting. But with fan webpages, you're expecting a labor of love... and you don't always get that. All I want is truth in advertising. Nothing more, nothing less.

Summary- try though he might to convince you otherwise, Jett/Bill Ramey is Chris Nolan's promotional and PR bitch. Emma Thomas is his "man on the inside" who has given him gossip and scoops over the years.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Ahhh, so that Jett idiot is the final piece in the interwebs Harry Knowles/Steve Eunuch "Axis of Evil"? Guys who proclaim "fandom", but actually sell themselves to the highest bidder?

Figures.

I just love that they try to act like they do what they do for US. You know, the lowly, unwashed masses? Without "connections" to a world they will NEVER be a real part of? Doing it out of the "goodness of their hearts".

Muthaphuckin' SAINTS, the lot of 'em....

thecolorsblend wrote:Yep. And "Axis" is probably the right way to put it too. Technically, Craig Byrne from K-Site does the same thing. But he mostly has no illusions that he's an underpaid flack when you come down to it.

What Bill Ramey doesn't seem to grasp is that Thomas and Nolan are going to lose his number the day after they wrap up promo obligations for TDKRises. He thinks he's on "the inside"? He's not inside anything.

And say whatever you want about the other two but Knowles at least gets free shit from all and sundry and the Eunuch has a pretty well designed web page. Bill Ramey has a shit website and he only gets spoiler info and the occasional junket-style interview with Nolan. Talk about being under-compensated. Bad enough you're a shill; but to be such a cheap shill... oy...

thecolorsblend wrote:Yep. And "Axis" is probably the right way to put it too. Technically, Craig Byrne from K-Site does the same thing. But he mostly has no illusions that he's an underpaid flack when you come down to it.

Apologist Puncher wrote:An honest hooker, at least...

The actress started filming Knight in June 2011, working on and off until the fall in locations including Los Angeles, New York and Pittsburgh. She says there were long gaps when she wasn't needed: "It was a very, very small role."

Otherwise, Cotillard is coy about the picture, whose storyline has fueled pages of Internet speculation. All she'll confirm is that, contrary to some fans' belief, she does not play Talia, the vengeful daughter of Liam Neeson's character, Ra's Al Ghul (who also appeared in Batman Begins), and that she takes the role of Miranda Tate, an ecologically minded businesswoman who "is fascinated by Wayne Enterprises. They go through difficulties, and she wants to help provide the world clean energies. She's a good guy." But does she stay that way? "Yes," she insists.

webhead2006 wrote:Marion cotillard claims she isn't talia:
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/news/marion-cotillard-dark-knight-rises-rust-bone-321515?page=2

The actress started filming Knight in June 2011, working on and off until the fall in locations including Los Angeles, New York and Pittsburgh. She says there were long gaps when she wasn't needed: "It was a very, very small role."

Otherwise, Cotillard is coy about the picture, whose storyline has fueled pages of Internet speculation. All she'll confirm is that, contrary to some fans' belief, she does not play Talia, the vengeful daughter of Liam Neeson's character, Ra's Al Ghul (who also appeared in Batman Begins), and that she takes the role of Miranda Tate, an ecologically minded businesswoman who "is fascinated by Wayne Enterprises. They go through difficulties, and she wants to help provide the world clean energies. She's a good guy." But does she stay that way? "Yes," she insists.

thecolorsblend wrote:Don't know why I only just remembered this but there was a point where Jett/Ramey was convinced I was SSS. In fact, he may still think that even though I categorically denied it. Basically, the Singerman Sucks blog had proven to be quite influential and a lot of people were talking about it. Since SSS reinforced a lot of the things I was thinking and/or saying, obviously he (?) and I were going to see eye to eye. So somehow, Jett's unfailing deductive reasoning lead him to the conclusion that I'm SSS. If I had been SSS (which I wasn't/am not), I wouldn't deny it. But I did deny it. Because it's not fucking true, hello! Duh...

I tell ya, these semi-conscious Nolanites...

Apologist Puncher wrote:We all had a little SSS in us.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Speaking of which, wonder what happened to him?