Batman [Begins] 2: 2 Villains

[SpringHeelJack]

But it really wasn't a cliffhanger ala "Dead Man's Chest". If it were, it would have ended with... I don't know, Mr. Freeze running in and shouting "Batman! I just found out Harvey Dent survived and we need to work together to stop his new plot to destroy Gotham City!"

I mean, I don't doubt for a second there's a third movie in store, one because it's not a great place to end a series and two because Warner Brothers will see to it because it's a financial juggernaut. But it's certainly not a major cliffhanger that people are speculating on how it will be resolved.

[Widdi]

We don't even know if Nolan going to do a third movie yet.

Lot of people have been saying this, but I heard a long time back that what was planned was a trilogy, and I'm constantly surprised by other people who did not get the feeling I did from "Dark Knight" that it was a cliffhanger a la "Empire Strikes Back" and "Dead Man's Chest".

I didn't see it as so much of a cliffhanger as I did a great set-up for the third movie.

[slave2moonlight]

Lot of people have been saying this, but I heard a long time back that what was planned was a trilogy, and I'm constantly surprised by other people who did not get the feeling I did from "Dark Knight" that it was a cliffhanger a la "Empire Strikes Back" and "Dead Man's Chest".

I didn't see it as so much of a cliffhanger as I did a great set-up for the third movie.

Well, it wasn't to the extent of leaving someone in need of rescuing, but I felt there were a lot of loose ends.

[James]

Well I just saw it, and amid the great almost stunning performance of Heath ledger, and the also fantastic work from Christian and Aaron, i was kinda disappointed. It was a great movie, no doubt, very nice stuff, it's just, it's kinda over-rated. Everyone is going on about it, and saying it's so great, but to me, it seems kinda self-absorbed, and slightly over the top. The way it was so long, and that they kept reiterating the same points about heros and stuff was so annoying, and Maggie Gyllenhaal was kinda left with nothing to do lol.
Yeah, and loose ends, there were, we didnt know what actually happened to Maggie, would've been nice to see her body or her actually die, (lol), know what actually happened to The Joker, and know what happened to the people on the ships lol. Too much talk about hero stuff for me.

But still, a very good movie, I loved Heath! My boy did me so proud.
-James

[slave2moonlight]

Often I bring up to people that I am surprised how few folks agree with me that the ending of Dark Knight was a cliffhanger in the style of Empire Strikes Back and POTC: Dead Man's Chest. Not that it's THAT obvious, but still pretty obvious. Yet, when people do agree with me, they usually cite the way Joker was left hanging as one of the main loose ends. For me though, that wasn't a loose end at all. I simply interpreted it as the Joker being apprehended by the police. Seen a lot of TV episodes end that way anyway. He wound up in Arkham, that's all. If he escaped, he escaped, but I doubt he'll play a role in a third movie. They might mention him, it would even be cool to insert him digitally into the background of an Arkham scene (or maybe there is something like that amongst the deleted stuff that could fit into a third film), but I don't exactly feel it necessary.

For me, the very introduction of Gordon's son and wife created a situation that must be dealt with. I'm not a Batman expert, but I've never known Gordon to have anyone but his daughter. Two-Face, the way he was left, led a lot of people to assume he was killed. I found no reason to believe that, and I think Nolan is too true to Batman to be a director who kills off the villains (I don't believe Ra's died either, but in the case of Two-Face, I'm certain he wasn't killed). So, since they didn't make it clear for the totally clueless that Two-Face survived, it's something else that all but demands a third film. Lastly, there's the dark ending of the film and the relationships within. The second film in a trilogy is notoriously dark like that, and you have the letter that Alfred didn't reveal to Bruce, Lucius Fox's situation at the end (Were they implying that he quit, or that he stayed? He said he wouldn't continue to work for Wayne as long as the surveilance machine was there, but he destroyed it; Still, everyone says he quit), and most importantly, the city was left believing Batman was a murderer. I see that as the main loose end myself, though others don't seem to. Go fig.

Anyway, add all that to the fact that I had heard well before Dark Knight that Nolan planned to make a trilogy and that the second film would be about the Joker and the third about Two-Face (though I'm sure a new villain will also be introduced, if not take center stage).

As for Rachael, to me, she simply blew up, though some folks speculate she will become Catwoman. I doubt that.

[UmbrellaFish]

I saw this film a few weeks ago and was plesantly surprised. I didn't quite enjoy Batman Begins, and expected the hype surrounding the film about Ledger's Joker was nothing more than hype. But it was very good and I thoroughly enjoyed it, particularly The Joker. I definitely plan on getting this on DVD when it was released.

[azul017]

Two-Face, the way he was left, led a lot of people to assume he was killed. I found no reason to believe that, and I think Nolan is too true to Batman to be a director who kills off the villains (I don't believe Ra's died either, but in the case of Two-Face, I'm certain he wasn't killed). So, since they didn't make it clear for the totally clueless that Two-Face survived, it's something else that all but demands a third film.

The script (which you can read online) and the novelization all emphasize the point that Two-Face is dead. The reason Batman is taking the fall for his death is to not taint Harvey's public image as the symbol of hope for Gotham. People can argue that all they want, but should Nolan do a third film, it's a good chance he won't resurrect Two-Face and instead focus on a new villain.

Lastly, there's the dark ending of the film and the relationships within. The second film in a trilogy is notoriously dark like that, and you have the letter that Alfred didn't reveal to Bruce, Lucius Fox's situation at the end (Were they implying that he quit, or that he stayed? He said he wouldn't continue to work for Wayne as long as the surveilance machine was there, but he destroyed it; Still, everyone says he quit)...

Anyway, add all that to the fact that I had heard well before Dark Knight that Nolan planned to make a trilogy and that the second film would be about the Joker and the third about Two-Face (though I'm sure a new villain will also be introduced, if not take center stage).

As for Lucius's loyalty, Batman did tell him that when he's finished using the bat-sonar technology, tells him to destroy the program by entering in his name. Lucius is satisfied (walking away smiling as the machine self-destructs), and more than likely he'll still be working at Wayne Enterprises but probably a bit more wary of his boss' morals in a third film.

As for Nolan planning out a trilogy, I still think he has one in mind, but altered for a different villain in a third movie. Harvey's development and fall from grace was very well-done in one movie, trying to retcon his death for a third film diminishes the character's effectiveness.

And as for Alfred burning Rachel's letter, I think he was doing that to spare Bruce's feelings, as the man was grief-stricken at that point. Reading Rachel's letter would've broken his heart further.

[slave2moonlight]

The script (which you can read online) and the novelization all emphasize the point that Two-Face is dead. The reason Batman is taking the fall for his death is to not taint Harvey's public image as the symbol of hope for Gotham. People can argue that all they want, but should Nolan do a third film, it's a good chance he won't resurrect Two-Face and instead focus on a new villain.

I'd have to see a Two-Face-free third film before I would believe that he's dead. It's hard to believe that a legendary villain like Two-Face's career would be so short, and I know from being a Star Wars fan that novelizations and online scripts are not to be relied upon.

As for Lucius's loyalty, Batman did tell him that when he's finished using the bat-sonar technology, tells him to destroy the program by entering in his name. Lucius is satisfied (walking away smiling as the machine self-destructs), and more than likely he'll still be working at Wayne Enterprises but probably a bit more wary of his boss' morals in a third film.

That's how I took it, though everyone I hear talk about it thought that he was quitting in the end.

As for Nolan planning out a trilogy, I still think he has one in mind, but altered for a different villain in a third movie. Harvey's development and fall from grace was very well-done in one movie, trying to retcon his death for a third film diminishes the character's effectiveness.

I don't doubt that a new film would focus on a new villain, but all we really saw in Dark Knight was Two-Face taking a fall and the memorial ceremony for Harvey Dent. I realize Batman was taking the blame for killing Dent, but I suspect part of what will "clear" him in the public's eyes (and that will likely be part of what happens in the next film) will be the emergence of Two-Face as someone the public comes to know and fear as a new criminal of Gotham. I don't see the reviving of Dent as Two-Face to be such a big and unbelievable/hard to manage thing. If they wanted to show he was gone for good, they could have done it much better than that.

And as for Alfred burning Rachel's letter, I think he was doing that to spare Bruce's feelings, as the man was grief-stricken at that point. Reading Rachel's letter would've broken his heart further.

Yeah, that was clear, but still, it's something that can be used easily in a third film to tie it all together as a trilogy, and I believe that was the point. It seemed too important to be something not to touch back upon.

[universALLove]

Cher 'to play Catwoman' in next Batman film

"The 62-year-old singer and actress is reported to be in talks to play Catwoman opposite Christian Bale in the third Batman film from British director Christopher Nolan.

The Oscar-winner will join a cast that includes Johnny Depp as The Riddler as she plays the whip-carrying burglar. The character has also been played by Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry.

A studio executive said: "Cher is Nolan's first choice to play Catwoman. He wants to her to portray her like a vamp in her twilight years.
"The new Catwoman will be the absolute opposite of Michelle Pfeiffer and Halle Berry's purring creations."

Filming of the new Batman instalment, provisionally entitled The Caped Crusader, is due to begin in Vancouver early next year.
The Dark Knight, this summer's blockbuster, has become the most successful of the Batman movies. Warner Bros expects the film to make about $530m.

It stars the late Heath Ledger, who was found dead in his Manhattan apartment after taking an accidental drugs overdose. His performance as The Joker is widely expected to garner an Oscar nomination.
Cher's recent acting performances have included Tea with Mussolini in 1999 and Stuck on You, in 2003 in which she played herself."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... -film.html

[Mooky]

What the ...?

[JiminyCrick91]

1. It's going to happen
2. It's just not happening.
3. If it did (which it will not), I dread a line like 'I've got you, Bats'.
4. It's SO not happening.

-Sky

[SpringHeelJack]

I saw this a while back... It won't happen.

The idea of Cher doing this like 20 years ago isn't a bad one, but she can't even move her face anymore, how can she act?

[Widdi]

Bah. As much as the idea of re-inventing Catwoman as an old vamp who has a thing for Batman intrigues me, I don't see it happening.

Nothing in that newspaper is credible. Depp as the Riddler is just a wet dream of the Depplovers from IMDB. The Caped Crusader is like the worst title ever, and Chris Nolan hasn't signed on for the third movie and even if he did it wouldn't start filming next spring.

I still fully believe Catwoman should be (and probably will be) in the next Batman movie, but this article is Bullocks.