The Dark Knight: Casting Rumours for the Third Movie

It would be stupid to go with Jason Todd before Dick Grayson. Most people know Robin as Dick, and only geeks know who Todd was. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the majority of movie goers don't even realize there were 4 Robins.

 

Yea, I remember thinking the same thing when I saw BB. IMO, that would have been a great way to introduce him, although at the same time I could understand Nolan's desire not to have Robin in his franchise. Its almost as if the presence of Robin would make the movie too comic-booky, if that makes any sense (that's also my fear with the Penguin, as well).

 

If they were to introduce Robin, it'd have to be one of the main plots of the movie, and there's just no room in the next 2 films for that.

 

Then why not to 3 more? Or 4? Trilogy seems likely, but as this is a hypothetical sequel(s) plot discussion thread, why not consider the possibility for more than just the trilogy. It even opens up the possibility for NightWing

 

If they were to introduce Robin, it'd have to be one of the main plots of the movie, and there's just no room in the next 2 films for that.

I have the uneasy feeling that if they introduce Robin,
nipples on the batsuit are right around the corner.

 

Someone over at IMBD's BB sequel board made the same Robin/Kid in the narrows observation. I honestly think we're more likely to see King Tut & Egghead before we see Robin

 

If Nolan wants to remain true to the comics. That kid from the narrows will be just that kid from the narrows not Robin. Unless that kid form the narrows becomes part of the circus. Anyways from what I hear from Nolan and Bale I don't think we will see Robin in any of their Batman movies.

 

The other night I was thinking about who would play Robin if he was brought into the series, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers popped into my head. He's definitely got the look, and a load of potential, but the only problem would be his Irish accent.

Another topic for discussion - Catwoman. Did the rather laughable movie eliminate the possibility of an appearance from her, or will she make an appearance in the series?

 

I'd say the appearance of Catwoman is more likely than that of Robin, but the chances of either are rather low.

 

The minute they put Robin in the movie, it becomes camp.

 

A bit off topic, but I watched Batman Begins for the first time yesterday since I saw it in the theatre. It really is an amazing picture. The story depth, the visual look, the acting, everything is just top-notch. The juggling act between the two storylines of Bruce's training and his past is done flawlessly. I know this is the token knock on the movie, but the only complaint I have is Katie Holmes' performance. She really was bad.

 

QFT. The latest crop seem to have gone crazy with this. Spiderman 2 was just ridiculous in that regard (he told, like, half dozen people, not even including those on the train). BB was a bit better, in that bringing Fox into the loop as part of the Bat team kind of made sense. But the Katie Holmes thing was unnecessary and approaching gratutitous.

Really? I thought he actually did a good job of mixing real menace with a kind of gawky looking awkwardness. But then, I've never really thought scarecrow worked that well, with the possible exception of that radical redesign at the end of Bruce Timm's BTAS run.

I agree with everything but the cinematographer. The overall atmosphere and things was good. But in general, I thought the action was terrible. Too often, there were just a bunch of rapidly cut shots of arms and legs and grunts. You couldn't even get a real sense of what was happening. I would, prefer, in the future, someone that actually let's us see a bit more of the actual actors as they do the combat sequences. The lack of perspective made it really difficult to enjoy. The exception here is the Ducard/Wayne pieces which were most important. And the film was also saved by the fact that it wasn't very action driven, so this flaw didn't hurt it too much.

It was certainly one of the better ones, yes. But really, it was no more complex or intelligent than, say, Spiderman. Overall, I thought while it had a nice thematic arc and managed a very successful introduction to the series, it really didn't have a story to tell. Or, at least, the story of the League of Shadows attack on Gotham was comparatively much weaker than the first hour, which explained how Batman came to be.

 

I have a feeling that we will be seeing a lot of Batman in the future:
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=1808403071

 

"Darth Zyklaus posted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like a superhero movie with no love interest/someone finding out the secret ID... for a change...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



QFT. The latest crop seem to have gone crazy with this. Spiderman 2 was just ridiculous in that regard (he told, like, half dozen people, not even including those on the train). "

Well, seeing as how in the comics Spider-man is going to reveal to the world via press conference who he is, I would say the three people(not half dozen) in the movie isn't far off. And on top of that, two of the three from the movie knows who Spider-man is in the comics.

 

So we need a new love interest...

how about Robin?

 

I thought the cinematography was excellent. Even the mainstream award outlets - which I HATE - thought so. Its owes alot more to " The Crow " then any Batman film. Its look alone adds enough depth to make it one of the better superhero films. Having multiple excellent performances, including the title character, puts it WAY ahead of anything Ive ever seen. And I dont like Batman. Never followed the comic, always thought it was chintzy, always snickered at people insisting at the vigilante angle, didnt like any of the films or the television shows, but despite everything I just said I really, really enjoyed this film. This made me wanna go and read early Batman stuff. I didnt care about the action because the other aspects of the film were THAT good. Its drama and noir-ish mystery, not action, like you say. And I agree with you about how crazy they got with Spiderman - which is something I am lored in, as well as Superman and I hope the keep the rudder steady next weekend.

 

You imagine in reality, Peter Parker would be the scapegoat and go-to-man for every crisis in the city. Next film, nobody's going to know he is Spider-Man but heck it's a big city.

 

For the record, I have to say that I really, really don't like the Spiderman films. They stick way to close to the regular superhero mould. It's got tongue-in-cheek comedy, a comic-book edge, unbelievable, larger-than-life villains. Batman Begins had none of these, and that's why it worked so well, IMO.

 

That is what is so appealing about Batman,he's human and flawed. Superman and Spider-Man are so unrealistic and hard to root for in my opinion.

 

Yes, perhaps the superhero has an inherent advantage.

 

Batman is a superhero. His intelligence and his persistance are his powers

 

So does that make Albert Einstein a superhero?

But seriously, I don't consider Batman a superhero. Superheroes, IMHO, possess unnatural and exotic abilities that you could never find in an ordinary human (strength of ten men, shoots webs out of wrists, etc.).

Now, make no mistake that Batman is on par, if not greater than the superheroes. He just doesn't have the outlandish abilities that you would come to find in Supes, Spidey, Hulk, etc.

Batman = Hero

 

Batman possesses a super-human intellect. He is considered the smartest of all superheroes.

A superhero is like a super lawyer. A notch above the rest.

 

You are entering a world you know little about.

Walk away.

Just walk away.

Oh and people?

It's Spider-Man. Not Spiderman. Not Spider Man. Spider-Man.

USE THE HYPHEN

 

Nolan and Bale have stated that as long as they are involved there will be no Robin