[quote]WhiteFlash wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I want to see shadows from a set of Venetian blinds cast across Batman’s cowl during a moment of helplessness.
I want to see a movie with all of Batman’s flaws on display, outmatched only by a devious leading lady and further complicated by an amoral villain and some sort of McGuffin-type object of desire.
Perhaps something with a lot of black and white and specific insertions of color, a la Sin City.
Would it kill them to use low camera-angle shots like certain parts of A Clockwork Orange, in order to emphasize the subjugated and the dominant?
Would it also kill them to hear some fucking Batman voice-over narration, complete with menacing growl?[/quote]
I’m fully on board with your idea. I love that style of film. I just don’t think any studio, especially one as big as WB, will take that kind of risk with a franchise that’s already proven to be incredibly profitable, even when the movies suck.[/quote]
Personally, I don’t think WB can afford NOT to take some sort of approach that is a huge departure from the typical comic book hero film. Nolan has set the bar high, and this is exacerbated by the fact that there are already going to be a ton of second-rate comic films coming out as it is. Let’s face it, Ironman, Avengers, Thor and so forth were decent films, but when it comes to comic book films there is what Nolan has done…and there’s everything else. I don’t think WB can afford to rejoin the “everything else” crowd after what they financed with Nolan.
That’s the thing. Batman films are now in a category or on a level far different/above films like Ironman or Thor or The Avengers. What does WB do? Start trying to outdo the lowest common denominator? Or take the bar that Nolan set high and continue that? Batman was done differently by Nolan, so how does WB support another Batman film/franchise and stay different from the shit that’s being produced from Marvel Studios? I think the route that I suggested is a great way to go.
What’s the process like for submitting a screenplay for review by some major studio execs at WB? [/quote]
I like your descriptions, however, what you’re describing seems like it’d be more suited for Animation than live-action.
Which I wouldn’t mind, to be honest, but WB’s animation is more in the realm of Looney Tunes and Animaniacs than anything gritty, no?[/quote]
I don’t really know who produces what animated films these days. Did WB do the original Animated Series? That wasn’t quite the look/feel I had in mind, but it’s a start.
I’m thinking something more like Sin City’s tone, but a little more realistic, and maybe a little more color. I think certain parts of the first two Godfather films have certain noirish elements to them that I think would work as well. Specifically, the lighting and also the outright honesty of scenes like the hospital scene from the first film, or any of the scenes featured in Vito/Michael’s office.
But here’s the thing that would really make a film like this a legitimate vehicle for WB. The type of film I have in mind won’t require anywhere near the type of budget that any of the recent comic films have had. Batman Begins was probably shot for the least money and it must have cost about $200 million. My idea would probably cost half that to produce and would make several times that even with less marketing than is the norm. I don’t think a whole lot of CGI would be needed and there also wouldn’t need to be as many big action sequences involving lots of visual effects or stunts. There also wouldn’t be the need for multiple filming locations on every goddamned continent like The Dark Knight Rises.
I think a good, young, hungry director with a great eye for cinematography, much in the vein of Kubrick, Leone or early Scorsese efforts, could do a really high quality film noir with Batman at the center of it for under $100 million. Big-name actors aren’t required either, just not people who are complete unknowns in the key roles. I think someone mentioned Guy Pearce as Batman and, despite his physical stature, I think that’s a good choice. Call me crazy, but I think Russell Crowe could be an incredible choice as well, and I don’t think his price is that high anymore.
With a manageable budget like this, there would be big profits just based on who the main character is. I think a lot of people would go see any Batman movie no matter what it looked like, and I think there are a lot who would also go and see a Batman movie who are casual fans if it showed promise and was different. Shit, my parents aren’t exactly Batman fans (neither ever read the comics) but they both were really excited to see The Dark Knight Rises after they had seen The Dark Knight in the theater. And they NEVER go to the movies.[/quote]
I mentioned Pierce, and if you saw Lockout [great homage to 80’s one-liner riddled action flicks], he got pretty big. Also, I’m completely on board with the animated idea. I actually said this earlier but T-Nation ate the post. And, I think we can all agree that the recent incarnations of Batman films are in a league of their own, and Warner is gonna have to do something BIG to even maintain the bar, but I still think a straight Noir-ish approach would be a hard sell. I think keeping it as realistic as Nolan has is key, and maybe starting to explore the darker side of Gotham [and Batman/Bruce Wayne] would be cool. Just don’t think Warner is down to pull out all the stops and make an R rated Batman just yet.[/quote]
I was referring to Pearce’s height more than his build. But yeah, build-wise, he can definitely pull it off. In Memento, he looked pretty thin, but you could tell that there was a lot of lean muscle and a good foundation to build on.
With Russell Crowe, I like his acting ability and his overall build, but goddamnit, the guy is simply going to have to put the fucking Foster’s down for a few months to get the hard, muscular look required. I just don’t think he has that in him anymore.
