Bale To Be The New Batman; Caine To Be Alfred

[Guest El Satanico]

I liked Hulk, but...

 

Spoiler (Highlight to Read):

I disliked the super absorbing man ending

[Guest JMA]

I think X2 is overrated. I enjoyed it very much, but the ending was dull and it's nowhere near as good as Superman II or the original Batman.

And I find the original Batman (I'm guessing you mean Burton's first one) to be GROSSLY overrated. It had SOME good moments (seeing Gotham, the right atomsphere, Nicholson) but it just doesn't compare to many other super-hero movies. IMO, Mask of the Phantasm is THE best Batman movie.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I think X2 is overrated. I enjoyed it very much, but the ending was dull and it's nowhere near as good as Superman II or the original Batman.

And I find the original Batman (I'm guessing you mean Burton's first one) to be GROSSLY overrated. It had SOME good moments (seeing Gotham, the right atomsphere, Nicholson) but it just doesn't compare to many other super-hero movies. IMO, Mask of the Phantasm is THE best Batman movie.

Eh, since you say it's overrated, I assume you know you're in the minority on this one. Personally I think the first two Batman movies are great, and I dearly wish Burton had continued making more. The improvement of the second on the first makes me wonder what they could've done for #3.

Edited November 30, 2003 by MrZsasz

[Use Your Illusion 0]

they should get Michael Keaton to play Batman and then destroy all the evidence of "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin"

No thanks. I want a NEW Batman franchise. It looks like they're on the right track.

Bah.

 

Michael Keaton as Batman > God

[Guest El Satanico]

Michael Keaton as Batman > God

Keaton as Batman is better than a mythical being?

 

You say that like it's a good thing.

[Guest JMA]

Eh, since you say it's overrated, I assume you know you're in the minority on this one. Personally I think the first two Batman movies are great, and I dearly wish Burton had continued making more. The improvement of the second on the first makes me wonder what they could've done for #3.

Not really. There are plenty of people who find it overrated. Many of them fans of the comic. Just check out the DC comics message boards sometime and you'll see what I mean.

[Guest JMA]

they should get Michael Keaton to play Batman and then destroy all the evidence of "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin"

No thanks. I want a NEW Batman franchise. It looks like they're on the right track.

Bah.

 

Michael Keaton as Batman > God

Nostalgia makes lots of things look better. Kevin Conroy was a much better Batman than Michael Keaton.

[Highland 0]

I think Alfred would have a large role in the movie, especially if it is based on Batman's first year. Also, Aflred is English, so they should let Caine keep his accent.

[Guest El Satanico]

Well if Alfred was English then i hope they let him use his accent and british slang(in a diginified way).

 

What...I love brit accent and brit slang

[Guest JMA]

Well if Alfred was English then i hope they let him use his accent and british slang(in a diginified way).

 

What...I love brit accent and brit slang

Same here. It adds a certain refinement to the character.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

Just wondering, the original Alfred that has been in all the major Batman movies over the past few years, is he still alive?

 

He must be getting on in his years if he hasn't already gone.

 

UYI

[Tony149 0]

Just wondering, the original Alfred that has been in all the major Batman movies over the past few years, is he still alive?

 

He must be getting on in his years if he hasn't already gone.

 

UYI

Yes. Michael Gough is somewhere between 85-87 years old. I believe he's 85 though.

[starvenger 0]

Well if Alfred was English then i hope they let him use his accent and british slang(in a diginified way).

 

What...I love brit accent and brit slang

Same here, but my fiancee's a Brit, so I may be a bit biased in that regard...

[Ravenbomb 0]

he's 86

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

From 411:

 

Eastwood In Batman? Savage In Superman?

Posted By Ashish on 12.01.03

 

More crazy rumors...

 

Sky News reports that Clint Eastwood is being sought after by director Christopher Nolan for a role in the upcoming new Batman movie. Eastwood would likely play the mayor of Gotham City.

 

Meanwhile, AintItCool.com reports that Ben Savage (Boy Meets World) is rumored for the role of Jimmy Olsen in the new Superman movie.

 

These are RUMORS.

[Guest SP-1]

Eastwood should grow a mustache and be Gordon.

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

Yes. Michael Gough is somewhere between 85-87 years old. I believe he's 85 though.

 

I remember reading that Gough and the guy that played Gordon were the only two actors to be in all four of the Batman movies.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Isn't Com. Gordon supposed to be younger in this movie?

 

I hope Ben Savage is a better actor than his brother.

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

Isn't Com. Gordon supposed to be younger in this movie?

 

I thought so to since it would be when Batman is starting out and in the Year One book his wife just had their first kid, a boy.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Fred Savage's biggest problem is he doesn't know how to act when he's on camera, and isn't speaking. His facial reaction never changes reguardles of what kind of scene he's in.

[Tony149 0]

Age has gone out of the window with the casting of Michael Caine as Alfred, Caine is like 70 or late 60s.

 

Batman-on-film.com (a damn good site) said Eastwood would be up for Commissioner Gordon. Apparently WB would like Clint to play a character ("Dirty" Harry, westerns, etc) fans know him best for, so him as Gordon would make him a cop ("Dirty" Harry) again. It is just a rumor.

 

And the new film supposedly isn't going to scream restart, but will take the GoldenEye approach -- it wouldn't be a sequel or a restart, just a Batman movie.

 

For those who don't know what the GE approach is: the James Bond franchise disappeared after 1989 "Licence to Kill" due to legal battles and when the franchise returned in 1995 it was like business as usual. Bond films aren't sequels (although they could of done it with Diamonds Are Forever, as a follow up to OHMSS), just stand-alone films.

[Guest El Satanico]

I thought the studio said this wouldn't be a Year One film.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't care about the continuity at this point. Give me a good Batman movie and I'll be happy. In fact, maybe the Bond approach would work best for Bats.

[Tony149 0]

I thought the studio said this wouldn't be a Year One film.

It isn't. It's just going to be Chris Nolan's Batman film.

 

Speaking of the Bond approach, Batman has so many good villians that you could probably continue a franchise for 10 or more films like Bond. The quality of the scripts would have a major in that but it could be done.

[starvenger 0]

I hope Ben Savage is a better actor than his brother.

What, you haven't seen "The Wizard"?

 

...

 

Um, scratch that. I meant, "Boy Meets World"?

 

Batman-on-film.com (a damn good site) said Eastwood would be up for Commissioner Gordon. Apparently WB would like Clint to play a character ("Dirty" Harry, westerns, etc) fans know him best for, so him as Gordon would make him a cop ("Dirty" Harry) again. It is just a rumor.

And the descent from "it could be decent" to "it's gonna be crap" begins. Someone from DC needs to start bitchslapping Warner movie suits...

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Eh, since you say it's overrated, I assume you know you're in the minority on this one. Personally I think the first two Batman movies are great, and I dearly wish Burton had continued making more. The improvement of the second on the first makes me wonder what they could've done for #3.

Not really. There are plenty of people who find it overrated. Many of them fans of the comic. Just check out the DC comics message boards sometime and you'll see what I mean.

Granted, but you must concede that the vast majority of casual moviegoing fans love it to death.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

And the new film supposedly isn't going to scream restart, but will take the GoldenEye approach -- it wouldn't be a sequel or a restart, just a Batman movie.

 

For those who don't know what the GE approach is: the James Bond franchise disappeared after 1989 "Licence to Kill" due to legal battles and when the franchise returned in 1995 it was like business as usual. Bond films aren't sequels (although they could of done it with Diamonds Are Forever, as a follow up to OHMSS), just stand-alone films.

Also the events of the previous film were retconned out of existence: Bond's return to the Double 0 Section after his exit from Her Majesty's Secret Service is never explained.

 

I think it goes without saying the last two will never be mentioned again.

[Guest JMA]

Personally, I'd like to see a new Joker. Not necessarily in this film, but eventually.

[Tony149 0]

And the descent from "it could be decent" to "it's gonna be crap" begins.  Someone from DC needs to start bitchslapping Warner movie suits...

 

DC has given Nolan's film its blessings. Batman screenwriter David Goyer mentioned him and Nolan have talked with DC about what they're doing (and they didn't have to), and has also mentioned they kept strings tight on faithfulness to the character.

 

And I agree with you Zsasz, LTK is the true bastard step-child of the Bond films. The first scene after GE's pre-title credits says "9 Years Later"; those 9 yrs before hit in 1987, Dalton's (first) years. Which is kinda funny because Brosnan was so close to the role in '87 and would of met the same fate Dalton did from 1990-1995 due to the legal war. Maybe it was a little wink to the fans, but considering they never did that to any other Bond makes you think they want people to forget it.

 

I happened to like LTK but I understand why others don't.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

And I agree with you Zsasz, LTK is the true bastard step-child of the Bond films. The first scene after GE's pre-title credits says "9 Years Later"; those 9 yrs before hit in 1987, Dalton's (first) years. Which is kinda funny because Brosnan was so close to the role in '87 and would of met the same fate Dalton did from 1990-1995 due to the legal war. Maybe it was a little wink to the fans, but considering they never did that to any other Bond makes you think they want people to forget it.

 

I happened to like LTK but I understand why others don't.

The exact same thing happened to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Blofeld's injury, Tracy's death, and Lazenby's tenure were all retconned out of existance due to that film's poor recption at the box office. Of course, now EON LOVES to talk about how great it is because the fanbase loves it.

 

If you look at the IMDB reviews of License to Kill the vast majority are positive. In 10 years, LTK will be a classic Bond film, mark my words.