Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Talks of The Dark Knight sequel

We're all pretty well aware of the rumors that started circulating around Christmas, The Dark Knight was getting a sequel set to come out in 2010 with Eddie Murphy as The Riddler and Shia Lebeouf as Robin. Since this news was being reported by the British equivalent of the National Enquirer, most of us internet dwellers knew it to be false, but americans ATE IT UP.

Now I think most people are pretty well aware of these being simple terrible rumors with no truth to them. But now there are more talks about the, inevitable, sequel. The internet got wind a few days ago of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Exectuive Producer Michael Uslan saying he'd signed on to executive produce The Dark Knight's sequel. He claims they're preparing for a 2011 release date, and when asked about the villains and love interest said "If I told you, I'd have to kill you."

My Analysis: Yes he probably did sign on to produce the film, but that talk of villains and love interest is just telling people what they want to hear. Him coming out and saying this while we have no word of wether Christopher Nolan is on board or not PROVES that WB will make the sequel with or without him, if you think they won't you really don't understand how these studios work.

Nolan has gone on to say, some of them while Batman Begins was in production, that there is a set of rules he has about his Batman films. 1. They'll be heavily rooted into reality. Meaning they'll try to feel as realistic as possible, and none of the villains that are 'supernatual' will make appearances. 2. Robin WILL NEVER appear in one of his films. Nolan's words are that Batman is just getting started out, he doesn't need a sidekick to help him fight crime. 3. He doesn't know if he wants to do a sequel to The Dark Knight.

Fans of The Dark Knight, that have no true understanding of the source material, continue to say if there is a sequel the Joker should not be recast, out of respect to the late Heath Ledger.

You can't do that.


Heath Ledger is not as important to The Joker, as The Joker is to Batman. If you paid attention when you watched The Dark Knight to the interogation scene you would know that. Re-casting the Joker MUST be done. The character is TOO important. It would be like making Return of the Jedi without Darth Vader, or Pirates of the Carribean 3 without Barbosa, or Aliens without any Aiens!

People will talk all they want about who they think should be cast as the villains in the film. I've heard Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin (Good idea), Johnny Depp as The Riddler (bad idea), David Tennet as The Riddler (Good Idea), Kristen Bell as Harley Quinn (Meh Idea), Angelina Jolie as Catwoman (She's far too busty for that suit though), and even that Daniel Day-Lewis should pick up the Joker (Great idea).

We'll not know for a while whats really going to happen, all we know is that wether you want to or not. There is a 99% chance of a sequel to what a lot of people think is the best movie ever made of all time ever.

5 comments:

Adrian Garcia said...

If there is a direct-sequel to The Dark Knight, then I'd agree that the Joker needs to be recast. However, if not, then I'd love to see some new villains.

What I felt made The Dark Knight (from other Batman movies) wasn't the actors (RIP Ledger), but it was the directing. He took a child's superhero into a complex, realistic human being. In other words, he matured Batman.

I've been a fan of Batman movies. And, I love where the superhero is going. But, to liken the Joker to Darth Vader is over-reaching. Important if there is a sequel, YES! Important when there's another movie, not so much.

I'm confident that a new cast of villains will effectively orchestrate a new idea, as the Joker did for The Dark Knight.

And, I'm not sure I'd call The Dark Knight the best movie ever made. One of the best, true, but hardly the greatest.

Spencer Perry said...

The Joker is to Batman what Darth Vader is to Luke Skywalker, an arch-enemy. How is that over-reaching? It would be like if James Earl Jones had died between Empire and Return, they WOULD have recast the voice because the character is TOO IMPORTANT to the story to simply leave him out.

Important if there is a sequel, YES! Important when there's another movie, not so much.

A sequel and another movie are the same thing in this case, its not like its going to be a spin-off of The Dark Knight. And its not that the Joker HAS to be in the sequel, he is just FAR too important to the character of Batman to put him aside just because the guy that played him accidentally died.


And I never said it was the best movie ever, I just know there are A LOT of people out there that say it is and expect you to agree with them.

Adrian Garcia said...

Luke Skywalker had one enemy, Dark Vader. Batman has many. To me, that's a significant difference. As it changes the entire mood. With a the Star Wars series, it was intimate and complex. In Batman, it's recurring, but the complexity comes from several occurrences with each villain; it's not as intimate.

I agree. That it's inevitable for their to be a sequel/another movie. But, I just can't see the idea that the Joker HAS to be in it. And, as far as Ledger goes, I could care less who plays the Joker. To me, his performance was good/great/fantastic, but it wasn't brilliant/mind-blowing/Oscar worthy.

I'm fully aware that you may not see it as the greatest movie ever; I just felt inclined to say that I didn't see it so.

Sorry if my comment seemed so crass. I didn't mean for it to be; that's the problem with virtual communication, not everything is taken in the context in which it was intended.

But, all-in-all, I can't wait for another Batman movie with Christian Bale.

Spencer Perry said...

It's debatable that Luke Skywalker had one enemy. Jabba the Hutt, The Emperor , Boba Fett (they did fight) are all enemies of his, but Darth Vader was his nemesis, as the Joker is Batman's nemesis.

I'm not saying that the Joker HAS to be in the sequel, I'm saying that they can't simply pretend the character isn't there or that they can't use him because Heath died.

Adrian Garcia said...

I guess that is true.