Saturday, February 28, 2009

GREEN LANTERN: FIRST FLIGHT Animated Film Announced

Posted by: Jett
February 28, 2009

Photobucket

From a press release:

BURBANK, CA, (February 27, 2008) – The fabric of intergalactic justice is threatened – until Hal Jordan arrives for his initial mission – in the animated Green Lantern: First Flight, the fifth entry in the popular DVD series of DC Universe Animated Original PG-13 Movies. A co-production of Warner Premiere, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Animation, the illuminated hero’s first-ever full-length animated film is set for release by Warner Home Video on July 28, 2009. Green Lantern: First Flight will be available as a special edition 2-disc version on DVD and Blu-Ray™ Hi-Def for $29.98 (SRP) and $34.99 (SRP), respectively, as well as single disc DVD for $19.98 (SRP). Order due date for all versions is June 23, 2009.

Acclaimed actor Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) fills the lead voice of Hal Jordan aka Green Lantern. Meloni is joined by fellow Emmy Award nominee Victor Garber (Milk, Titanic) as the villainous Sinestro, Tricia Helfer (Battlestar Galactica) as the voice of Boodikka, and Michael Madsen (Reservoir Dogs) as Kilowog.

Produced by animation legend Bruce Timm, Green Lantern: First Flight is helmed by heralded director Lauren Montgomery (Wonder Woman, Superman Doomsday) and scripted by four-time Emmy Award-winning writer Alan Burnett (The Batman).

Green Lantern: First Flight finds Hal Jordan recruited to join the Green Lantern Corps and placed under the supervision of respected senior Lantern Sinestro. The earthling soon discovers his mentor is actually the central figure in a secret conspiracy that threatens the philosophies, traditions and hierarchy of the entire Green Lantern Corps. Hal must quickly hone his newfound powers and combat the treasonous Lanterns within the ranks to maintain order in the universe.

Apart from this animated release, Warner Bros. Pictures is currently in pre-production on a new GREEN LANTERN theatrical motion picture, to be directed by Martin Campbell, bringing the popular DC Comics super hero to the big screen for the first time.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

WB Release Partial '09/'10 Slate -- Where's BATMAN 3?

Author: Jett
February 25, 2009

Take a deep breath…

Stop with the panic-stricken emails…

And RELAX.

A Chris Nolan-directed BATMAN 3 is coming.

As you may -- or may not -- know, Warner Bros. has made public a slew of release dates for several of their upcoming films (including dates for GREEN LANTERN and JONAH HEX -- CLICK HERE for that story). Speaking of Chris Nolan, his next project -- INCEPTION -- is set to hit theaters on July 16, 2010.

Photobucket

Chris Nolan's next project is INCEPTION for Warner Bros.,
scheduled for release 7/16/10

Not given a release date at this time was BATMAN 3, which is believed to be Summer 2011 flick. Right now, the only film that Warner Bros. has officially on the schedule for Summer 2011 is the last HARRY POTTER film on July 15th 2011. Warner has said previously that they would like to get next TERMINATOR film out during the Summer of ‘11 as well.

So where does that leave BATMAN 3?

Well, it could hit theaters in June of 2011. Remember, every Bat-Film sans THE DARK KNIGHT was a June release. On other hand, perhaps there will be a four year gap this time between films with B3 being released Summer 2012. I figure we’ll know once the film is “officially” announced.

Regardless, BATMAN 3 IS on its way…

With director Chris Nolan and co. in tow.

So RELAX.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Green Lantern & Jonah Hex Release Dates

Source:erc BoxOffice
February 24, 2009

Photobucket

Today, Warner Bros. announced the official release date for Green Lantern: December 17, 2010. One of the crown jewels of DC Comics, this will no doubt light up the box office over the holiday season, and marks a changing of the guard for superhero movies. Usually, men-in-spandex drop into theatres during the summer months, but with Iron Man 2, Thor, and The Green Hornet all set for summer 2010, DC wisely chose to corner the holiday market instead. Currently, the film is scheduled to debut the same weekend as Sony's big screen adaptation of the Smurfs. Blue vs. Green. I'm putting my money on green and guessing that blue will find another date that is a lot more smurfy.

Photobucket

Director Jimmy Hayward (Horton Hears a Who!) saddles up Jonah Hex--a western based on the DC comic book character--which rides into theatres 8/6/10. Josh Brolin is set for the title role, while John Malkovich will co-star.

EXCLUSIVE: Comic Book Creators Respond To 2009 Oscars

Published by Rick Marshall on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at 1:50 pm.

It’s no secret that movies based on comic books had a big presence at this year’s Academy Awards. From “Wolverine” star Hugh Jackman kicking off the Oscars with a comics-friendly musical note to one of the final awards going to deceased “Dark Knight” star Heath Ledger for his portrayal of The Joker, there was a lot for comics fans to like about this year’s Oscars.

While much of the comics-savvy masses were happy just to be recognized by the Academy, the final tally of awards did leave some fans wondering whether the night should be viewed as a snub for the genre or the first step toward greater respect for comic books as a medium. In order to get some perspective on what the night meant to the comics industry, I asked various comic book creators to offer up their thoughts on the Oscar results and what to take from the night’s nominees and winners.

MTV: What do you think about the sheer number of comic book movies nominated for Academy Awards this year?

JEPH LOEB (writer, “Hulk,” “The Ultimates;” former writer/producer, “Smallville,” “Lost,” “Heroes”): It’s fantastic to see the worldwide recognition of what those of us who are geeks already know: comics are exciting emotional stories with amazing visuals — like any great film!

PETER DAVID (writer, “X-Factor,” “The Incredible Hulk,” numerous “Star Trek” novels): There should have been more. It’s nothing short of criminal that “Dark Knight” wasn’t nominated for best film. Nor was Iron Man nominated for much beyond a handful of technical awards. Supporting for “Tropic Thunder” was fine, but where was Downey’s nomination for best actor?

BEN TEMPLESMITH (co-creator/artist, “Fell,” “30 Days of Night,” “Wormwood: Gentleman Corpse”): Well, it’s a great thing on the face of it. Most, though, were for the more technical-side Oscars, as along with Sci-fi, comic-based movies rarely get put up for the more glamorous sections, like the actual acting awards.

I think the number making it in, along with the box office success shows Hollywood the relationship with comics isn’t perhaps over yet. There’s still money to be made and a certain validity to it, provided things are treated with a level of maturity and sophistication. So long as there are more of “Dark Knight,” “300″ and “Iron Man,” and less of “Catwoman”… well, it’s a good problem to have. I still don’t think the comics industry as a whole is capitalizing on its new relationships with Hollywood nearly effectively enough, though.

FILIP SABLIK (publisher, Top Cow Productions, “Wanted”): We were pretty excited to see “Wanted” nominated for two awards. And of course, “Iron Man” and “Dark Knight” both deserved their nominations and accolades. It’s been a great year for comics and movies, let’s hope for an even better year in 2009!

DARICK ROBERTSON (co-creator/artist “Transmetropolitan,” “The Boys”): I’m enthusiastic that audiences and critics are finally getting in on the secret we comic nerds have known for years: That comics have great stories with great characters that will appeal to a wide audience, if presented faithfully in a serious manner, instead of being played for laughs or dumbed down as if only for kids to enjoy. It’s exciting to see good material and sincere performances be embraced by the public.

“Iron Man” and “Dark Knight” weren’t simply good comic book movies, they were just good movies with comic book characters in them. The award nominations and huge box office sales tells me that the hard road that the more challenging writers and artists have taken in comics to shake things up were the right roads. It would have been easy to keep pumping out formulaic pictures, but instead, fans of the genre have infiltrated Hollywood and let their inner geeks shine, and the results were Oscar-worthy movies. How encouraging and rewarding.

ROBERT KIRKMAN (co-creator, “The Walking Dead,” “Invincible”): I think it’s great — and also a testament to how versatile “comic book movies” can be. I haven’t seen “Slumdog Millionaire” yet… but I saw “Dark Knight” on opening night and I’d wager there’s a ton of people out there who thought it was a better movie. I think the time is coming that a movie originating from a comic can win best picture.

DAVID ATCHISON (writer, “The Warriors,” “O.C.T.”): The number of nominations reflects an increase in the quality of comic book films. There was a time when they were thought to be schlocky, fan-service pieces. While they’re not all high-art films, it’s nice to know there are a few with production elements worthy of Oscar consideration. Those are the films that will push the Comic Book Film movement to genre level like Westerns or Crime Films.

MTV: What do you think about the final result of the Academy Awards? Were comic book movies snubbed, or was this just the first step toward more recognition for movies based on comics?

ROBERT KIRKMAN: The whole ceremony this year seemed to be an apology that comedy and action movies are largely ignored by the academy… maybe that’s a sign of change. Ledger’s nomination was a given–but Downey Jr. being nominated for “Tropic Thunder” was a big surprise to me. I do think it’s ridiculous that Christopher Nolan wasn’t even nominated for best director.

DARICK ROBERTSON: A complete shut-out would have been worse. I think Heath Ledger winning for his role as The Joker was a giant validation for the whole film, and for the growth of comics as a mainstream art form. I believe Nolan should have gotten the best directors nod, at least a nomination, as that performance from Ledger was due in part to his direction, and “The Dark Knight” as a whole was amazing. Nolan will just have to comfort himself knowing that he made the greatest, blockbusting Batman film ever.

BEN TEMPLESMITH: I think with Heath winning for his portrayal of the Joker, you could never consider it a snub. Far from it. I think those performances and circumstances are rare though. He had buzz on that practically before he’d finished the film. I doubt Oscar wins for big superhero films will drive their sales much as they already have that mass market male demographic sort of sewn up. The ultimate “recognition” comic book properties need is the box office takings for the studio execs to make their decisions. That’s what Hollywood understands. That’s what will keep the relationship alive. I just want good stories turned into good movies. If that happens around half the time, well, I’ll take what I can get!

PETER DAVID: I think comic book films have joined the same ghettoizing that you typically see accorded comedies, thrillers, animation and with rare exception major tentpole films. Let’s face it, the two best films of last year were “Wall-E” and “The Dark Knight” with “Iron Man” right up there. We’ve already had more recognition for movies based on comics: Look at the attention paid to “History of Violence” or “Road to Perdition.” Unfortunately movies based on comic book action properties are persistently ignored because of the same biases that keep most such films out of the running for major recognition.

DAVID ATCHISON: It was a step in the right direction. Personally, I think “Dark Knight” deserved a nomination for Best Film if only because the box office numbers show audiences thought it was one of the better films of 08. Overall, comic book films did okay for the categories they were nominated in. If the production value of the films keep getting better it’s only a matter of time before the Academy recognizes them.

FILIP SABLIK: It’s the first big step. Let’s revel in the success, which is a ton of nominations and Heath Ledger actually winning for his work in “The Dark Knight”. That is tremendous. A comic book film won in one of the “big” prime time categories, not just for technical achievements or special effects.

JEPH LOEB: It’s all a process. Nobody thought a Western could win best picture until “Unforgiven.” Besides, we all know that “Dark Knight” should have won!

Legendary Confirms B3 In The Works And... (Does WB Have A Bat-Director Backup Plan?)

Author: Jett
February 24, 2009


This I can 100% guarantee: There’s going to be another BATMAN. In part due to a recent revelation on Legendary Pictures' website.

This I can almost guarantee: It will be made by the same creative team that have us BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT -- director Chris Nolan included, of course.

But there is a caveat that I learned about a while back and am now ready to reveal what it is. More on that in a bit….

Via writer Alex Litel’s , Legendary Pictures has -- or had -- BATMAN 3 listed as one of it’s upcoming projects. Here’s the screenshot:

Photobucket

If you can’t read the description of BATMAN 3, it says the following:

“A sequel to one of the highest grossing movies ever made, this blockbuster will continue the franchise’s reinvention of superhero cinema and aims to be a pop culture event.”

With THE DARK KNIGHT having pulled in $1 Billion worldwide at the box office and gosh knows how much more on DVD and Blu-ray, there’s simply no way in hell there isn’t going to be another BATMAN.

Photobucket

Now recently, BOF finally went public with some info (click here for that story) that I’ve been sitting on since the Fall as I wanted to hear the same or similar thing from other -- and unrelated -- sources. Anyway, that info was that when director Chris Nolan came to an agreement to helm INCEPTION for Warner Bros., there is at least some sort of understanding between him and the studio that he’ll do a third BATMAN -- though his reps won't confirm or deny it.

Of course, there’s been no “official” confirmation of this and there probably won’t be for a while. The bottom line here is that if Chris wasn't coming back, we'd know by now.

BUT, even though Warner Bros. is on the record as wanting to give Chris all the time and space he needed to decided if another BATMAN was in him, there be a contingent plan…just in case.

Photobucket

Industry scuttlebutt of late spat out an interesting name of a director that Warner Bros. might have been eyeing to take over the Bat-franchise if Chris Nolan decided he was done with Gotham City. And apparently, this particular director is interested in Batman on film -- at least an adaptation of a classic graphic novel starring The Dark Knight. Based on his past -- and upcoming work -- the guy knows how bring comics to film.

With that said, I believe -- and wholeheartedly want -- Chris Nolan bring us one more BATMAN. But what about AFTER BATMAN 3? Would you be keen on Zack Snyder taking over the franchise?

Just something to -- ahem -- “watch” for down the line.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Heath Ledger Wins the Oscar!!

Source:Superhero Hype!
February 22, 2009

Photobucket

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have just awarded Heath Ledger the award for Best Supporting Actor for his amazing performance as The Joker in The Dark Knight! Ledger's family accepted the award on his behalf.

Richard King just received the Oscar for Best Sound Editing for The Dark Knight as well.

GREEN LANTERN is next DCU Animated Feature

Photobucket

The 'Wonder Woman' DVD landed on our doorstep this weekend. We watched the movie and it's a great flick, but that's not what we're here to write about today.

Included as an extra on the DVD is the exclusive first look at DC Universe's upcoming 'Green Lantern' animated movie!

We were surprised to see this, since we hadn't even heard about the film before. Color us even more surprised when it's revealed that the film is due out later this year.

The first six minutes of the ten minute feature focuses on bringing the uninitiated up to speed with who and what the Green Lantern is, in terms of the history of the comics as well as the character.

But then producer Bruce Timm, director Lauren Montgomery and voice director Andrea Romano begin to take us behind the scenes of the movie, introducing the cast along with artwork from the production.

So who's voicing Hal Jordan in the movie?

None other than Christopher Meloni of 'Law & Order: SVU' fame.

The story follows Hal's acquisition of the ring and his journey into the Corps where he meets his mentor (and soon-to-be nemesis) Sinestro, played by Victor Garber of 'Alias'.

The film looks to be heavy science fiction featuring space faring adventure rather than Earthbound action. In fact it looks as if dozens of GL Corps members will appear, with Kilowog, Boodikka and Ch'p figuring prominently.

Michael Madsen ('Kill Bill') voices Kilowog while Tricia Helfer ('Battlestar Galactic') plays Boodikka.

No actual animation from the film is revealed, but the preview does show lots of design drawings, story boards and animatics, some of which we present below.

The "first look" closes with the declaration that 'Green Lantern' will be on DVD and Blu-Ray Summer 2009!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Review: WONDER WOMAN

Photobucket

Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell of the movie
of that Woman skilled in all ways of contending,
and her wanderlust, borne for years on end
after she was formed of clay and given life
on the proud shores of Themyscira.
She saw the towers of Man's World
and learned the minds of many distant men,
and weathered much oafish wooing
for her valiant heart, while she fought only
for her Sisters, to defeat the God of War.
But not only by will nor valor will she save them,
but through the might of her thews and the skill
of the doughty animators of Warner Brothers
who have given her life and brought Wonder to
screen to set hearts racing for beauty
and the lust of battle.

For those Philistines among you who slept through The Odyssey in high school, I'll give the modern English translation: the new Wonder Woman direct-to-video animated movie Kicks Ass. Hard. It is a gloriously exhilarating, operatic spectacle that sets a new and impossibly high standard for direct-to-video movies and superhero cartoons alike.

Wonder Woman begins with a bang, kicking us straight onto a battlefield in ancient Greece where the God of War Ares (voiced by Alfred Molina) and his forces battle against Queen Hippolyta (Virginia Madsen) and her warrior Amazon sisters. These scenes set the tone for the rest of the movie, with pulse-pounding action sequences that quickly and efficiently communicate a lot of information about the characters and the story. When Ares is finally defeated, the gods of Olympus task the Amazons to keep Ares imprisoned for the good of humanity, gifting them with eternal life and youth on the hidden island paradise of Themyscira, where they sequester themselves from Man's World for centuries. The only new life on the island comes when Queen Hippolyta forms a child of clay, naming the girl Diana after the figure is given life in a scene of surprising power. This youngest Amazon (Keri Russell) grows up to a coltish, independent woman that chafes at the boundaries keeping the Amazons as imprisoned as Ares. When a dogfight over Themyscira brings Col. Steve Trevor (Nathan Fillion) to the island, events are soon set in motion that will result in Diana leaving Themyscira to return Trevor to current-day Man's World and try to avert worldwide armageddon.

The easiest thing to focus on in Wonder Woman are the wonderful action sequences. Between Marvel's Hulk Vs. and Wonder Woman, it is a glorious time to be a fan of more mature action animation. We are treated to a great variety of creatively staged action sequences: the intimate, small-scale training duel between Artemis (Rosario Dawson) and Diana, the almost comical fight between Diana and a group of would-be muggers, the subsequent beatdown between Diana and Ares' thuggish son Deimos, the thrilling dogfight sequence that puts Trevor on Themyscira, and the massive, cast-of-thousands battles between armies of Amazons and nightmarish mythical monsters. The climactic battle scene is simply marvelous, set in an extremely familiar, real-world setting that gives the property damage real emotional weight, with the setting of one scene in particular adding a subtle but palpable emotional poignancy. Make no mistake, though: Wonder Woman pulls no punches in its powerfully kinetic battles. The battles are much more violent than any we've seen before, with an early cut of the movie earning an R-rating and the final cut still on the high-end of a PG-13. However, one of the things that Wonder Woman really gets right is the warrior culture of the Amazons that can glorify martial prowess without slipping into bloodthirst for its own sake, and that balancing act in the writing is probably why the violence in the movie never feels gratuitious or unnecessary. This is simply a different playing field than the ones we've been subconsciously conditioned to accept through the restrictions of Saturday morning cartoons.

No matter how great the action sequences are, they would be simple exercises in pointless violence without a good story, and Wonder Woman excels at this as well. It's story is a perfect fit for the DTV's 75-minute run time, especially compared to something like the excellent but maddeningly abridged Justice League: The New Frontier. The story carries zero excess weight, keeping things moving without ever dragging or getting sidetracked into boring digressions. It also does an excellent job at injecting just the right amount of humor into the movie, keeping the movie from getting overly dramatic or sinking into excessively dark mythical mud. The animation is sumptuous from start to finish, and would easily earn kudos on technical merit alone. The most nitpicky fans might complain that some elements aren't explained (like the invisible jet), but that would be like eating the finest gourmet meal you've ever had and complaining that that the silverware wasn't shiny enough. Even if the criticisms are factually true, they're also also completely irrelevant and seem to entirely miss the point of the exercise.

The characters of Wonder Woman are vividly realized through their story arcs, their character animation, and their absolutely pitch-perfect voice acting performances. The fans who expressed concern at Keri Russell's casting as Diana may rest easy: her spirited performance is perfect for the role, giving Diana a youthful free spirit that's backed by a steely, indomitable determination. She also gets a perfect foil in Steve Trevor, decidedly not the mansel in distress of the Lynda Carter TV show whose only function was to screw up and get rescued by Wonder Woman. Trevor is a chauvinist pig with a heart of gold who can definitely hold his own against Diana, and the nimbly written role seems tailor made for Nathan Fillion's wonderful performance. Steve and Diana are a pair right out of the finest film romantic comedies, and the movie does an excellent job of integrating their battle of the sexes into the larger narrative. Among the supporting characters, Alfred Molina's deliciously evil Ares proves that it really is more fun to be the bad guy, while Rosario Dawson as the Amazon's Amazon Artemis channels the entertaining macho swagger of Toshiro Mifune in his many samurai roles.

It is common for pop culture analysts to claim that superheroes are our modern-day myths. The claim may have some vague truth on the surface, but most superhero stories simply can't withstand that kind of scrutiny, collapsing quickly under that heavy metaphorical burden. Until now. In the end, Wonder Woman comes off as less of a superhero story and more like a modern-era fairy tale, tapping into the same deep, poetic vein plumbed by other pop culture works from Star Wars to The Matrix to the best of the Disney animated features. If there is a criticism to be leveled at Wonder Woman, it is only that it inadvertently makes all its predecessors look so bad by comparison, despite their considerable strengths, and that it sets a high-water mark that will be incredibly difficult for its successors to top.

The Dark Knight Breaks the $1 Billion Mark

Source:Variety
February 21, 2009

Photobucket

The Dark Knight has become the fourth film to take in more than $1 billion in worldwide box office.

Warner Bros. Pictures made the announcement Friday afternoon, saying that the combined domestic and international gross had totaled $1,001,082,160 to date -- about $533 million domestically and $567 million overseas.

The Dark Knight had been about $4 million short of the 10-figure mark when Warner Bros. re-released it into IMAX screens on Jan. 23, the day after its eight Oscar nominations were announced. Grosses from Ecuador also helped nudge the film over the mark, a spokeswoman said.

Only Titanic ($1.842 billion), The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King ($1.119 billion) and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ($1.066 billion) have topped the billion-dollar worldwide mark previously.

"Knight" also is the second-highest domestic grosser of all time, trailing only Titanic.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Zack Snyder says WATCHMEN DVD will be 3 hours 25 minutes

Photobucket

I’m at the press junket for “Watchmen” and I just spoke to director Zack Snyder. I’ll have exact quotes posted in the next few hours, but I wanted to get this up asap.

While the theatrical release of “Watchmen” is about 2 hours 36 minutes, Zack just told me the DVD/Blu-ray will have two versions to appease the fans that wanted more.

There will be a director’s cut on the DVD that will be 3 hours 10 minutes and another cut with “Tales of the Black Freighter” that will be 3 hours 25 minutes!

He also told me what deleted scenes to expect and I’ll have those exact quotes in the next few hours. Look for an update soon.

UPDATE: Here's exactly what Zack said...and I just posted 9 movie clips from "Watchmen" so click on the link to check them out!

Collider: What is the final running time on the DVD and what can fans look forward to?

Zack: The final running time without the Black Freighter is 3 hours and 10 minutes.

Collider: When you say the Black Freighter, so you’re going to put in some of the animated bits?

Zack: No. The Black Freighter version of the movie, which we call the final cut or the ultimate cut – it has a marketed name that I don’t know exactly what it is. That version of the movie, because when we were up there we physically shot the in’s and out’s, scenes at the newsstand that go into the movie. There’s like scenes where our characters pass the newsstand and then we pick up action at the newsstand and it gets us into the Black Freighter….with shots that go into it and it comes to life and you follow the Black Freighter story and then come back into the movie. That version of the movie is the director’s cut with the Black Freighter intercut. That version sort of traces the structure of the Black Freighter that's integrated into the comic book… So that version is the 3 hour and 25 minute version. So you have all those in’s and out’s…but the director’s cut includes the Hollis death stuff, that’s just a lot more connective tissue…it’s hard for me to even remember exactly what’s in it. But it’s just a lot more.

Collider: So let me ask you, is there footage that isn’t going in this director’s cut that’s sitting on the sidelines…or is this really everything?

Zack: It’s really pretty much everything. The 3 hour version is pretty much everything. There was very little that we shot that I didn’t like or use.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

BATMAN 3 Update

Posted by: Jett
February 17. 2009

Photobucket

This time around, BOF is -- and has been -- *ahem* cautious. Anyway…

Yesterday, BOF finally chimed in and reported that the great Chris Nolan’s deal with Warner Bros. for INCEPTION, included at least a handshake agreement for him to helm another BATMAN.

One of my fave sites -- MTV’s SPLASH PAGE -- picked up the story and contacted Chris’ reps. Here’s what they had to say:

“He is doing INCEPTION next. We haven’t announced any deal or anything on the next BATMAN as that is all speculation.”

Not a denial, is it? Moving on…

Another one of the sites I frequent daily -- IGN -- is now reporting that Chris is the only screenwriter attached to BATMAN 3. Here’s their report:

“Studios and guild members are required to submit work lists to the guilds of the projects that they are on….[Warner Bros’ work list] was submitted last week listing Christopher Nolan as the sole screenwriter on BATMAN 3.”

Two thing here. It pretty much confirms that Chris and co. have been working on the next Bat-Flick. And secondly, despite the fact that David Goyer (who deserves his DUE for bringing Batman back to film!) and Jonah Nolan aren’t listed, do you really think they are not involved?

For more, visit MTV and IGN for the full story.

REVIEW: BATMAN #686

REVIEW: BATMAN #686
Author: Jett Man
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Photobucket

FROM DC COMICS: "Best-selling author Neil Gaiman and superstar artist Andy Kubert join forces for a special 2-part BATMAN event!
'Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader' is a captivating and mysterious tale the likes of which Batman and friends have never experienced before. Delving into the realms of life, death and the afterlife, Gaiman leaves no stone unturned as he explores every facet and era of Bruce Wayne's life."

I have no idea what the purpose of this 2-parter “What Ever Happened To The Caped Crusader” is all about…I really don’t.

It looks to me as if this is some sort of “Goodbye” to the Golden and Silver Age Batman -- though it’s pretty clear (*I think*) that this isn’t “in-continuity, if you will So I’m thinking that this is DC’s way of bridging the gap between the “BATMAN, R.I.P.”/FINAL CRISIS fiasco, to this upcoming “BATTLE FOR THE COWL” miniseries. Ultimately followed by the “return” of the Bruce Wayne Batman in the DCU/Batman monthlies.

Whatever.

Why exactly is he “gone” in the first place? Oh yeah, he's been "Omega Sanctioned."

*sigh*

Look, I’ve really enjoyed Grant Morrison’s run on BATMAN -- ‘til the “ending” of “R.I.P.” I didn’t read a page of FINAL CRISIS, but I do know that Batman was “Omega Sanctioned” into pre-historic times thanks to the aforementioned Mr. Morrison.

Does this “WEHTTCC” have anything to do with “R.I.P.?” Probably -- which sucks to be honest.

The bottom line here is that you have a gathering of the “Batman Family” -- good and bad -- to remember The Dark Knight. We’re treated to two eulogies for The Batman -- one by Selina Kyle and the other by Alfred. And we learn that…

Selina turned away a mortally injured Batman...?

Alfred orchestrated The Batman’s Gotham adventures...?

*rolls eyes*

Right now, I don’t know what to make of this story, as it appears to have little -- if anything -- to do with Batman and the current state of the DCU. “Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader,” to me, appears to be nothing more than a one-off designed to kill time between the end of “R.I.P.” and the ultimate return of Bruce Wayne as Batman and the “status quo.”

Now that’s not a knock on Mr. Gaiman’s writing and story as well as Any Kubert’s artwork, as both do a very fine job here. But let’s call a spade a spade here: This is a one-off that would probably be better suited for a graphic novel -- not in the Batman monthlies.

It comes off as filler, killing time, etc. And if it ISN’T, then something’s wrong.

Perhaps I need to wait and see how things play out in Part 2, but right now, I don’t think so.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Nolan On Board BATMAN 3?

Author: Jett
February 16, 2009

Photobucket

According to three separate BOF sources, director Christopher Nolan’s recent deal with Warner Bros. for the film INCEPTION, at least includes an agreement between the studio and the acclaimed director to helm his second sequel to BATMAN BEGINS.

BOF was told last Fall that two of the Batman writing trio -- David Goyer and Jonah Nolan -- had already inked deals with Warner Bros. for a third BATMAN. At the time, it was believed that Chris Nolan had not signed on for BATMAN 3 but was “close” to doing so.

Recent reports online certain seem to jibe with this as industry scuttlebutt says that the script for BATMAN 3 is already being written (BOF via IESB.NET - 1-30-09). BOF has been told by several movie biz folks that Goyer, Jonah Nolan, and Chris Nolan have come up with a story/treatment and it is now in the hands of J-Nol for the first screenwriting pass -- very similar to what occurred for THE DARK KNIGHT.

Again, this appears to be inline with what even Chris Nolan himself has said. During the TDK BD Live event in December, the director said that he and Goyer had been “musing” and acknowledged that there was a story there that they wanted to tell (BOF - 12/19/08).

No official announcement of Nolan’s involvement with a third BATMAN was made with last week’s INCEPTION press release, and BOF does not expect one any time soon. I will say that the timeline for BATMAN 3 looks to bee very similar to that of THE DARK KNIGHT and the announcement for TDK came in July of 2006 on the eve of Comic Con in San Diego

I still would take this report with a grain of salt -- albeit a very small one. Until it's officially announced in the trades that Chris has signed on for BATMAN 3, all bets are off.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

The Dark Knight: where I stand

free stats

I've been reading over the comments from my last post.

My fascination with The Dark Knight is, primarily, structural. I have not encountered an American movie -- much less an American movie designed to be a gigantic blockbuster -- that is structured as ingeniously and compellingly as this one. I've simply never seen anything like it, and after several viewings it still continues to flabbergast.

I've worked on a handful of these types of movies, and let me tell you: they're hard -- they're really hard. There are so many issues for the writer to address: the protagonist must be active, the villain's plot must make sense, there must be a romantic interest, there must be due attention paid to the history of the character and the rules of the genre, they must be both fantastic and grounded at the same time, all these balls must be kept in the air and these concerns must mesh in a straightforward, compelling, swift, action-packed cinematic narrative, consistent in tone and true to its source material. I haven't seen one -- not one -- that has managed to get everything in and do everything right. None of the Superman movies do it, none of the previous WB Batman movies do it, none of the Spider-Man movies do it, neither of the Fantastic Four movies do it, and, as [info]jacksonpublick has noted, none of the Bond movies -- after more than 20 tries -- do it either. (Iron Man comes close -- really close.) But The Dark Knight not only does a better job than any other movie based on its source material -- and by that I mean "superhero comics" -- it does it with a radically ambitious screenplay that challenges any number of conventions and brings a new, added weight to its subject.

As such, I tend to let issues such as "Batman's growly voice" fall to the wayside as I try to figure out just how the hell the Nolans built this hugely compelling cinematic narrative.

Since I'm going to mostly refrain from nit-picking in my analysis, here's where I stand on most of the issues brought up by the Dark Knight discontents:

1. Batman's "growly voice" does sound a little silly.

2. I do not think Batman is a passive character. In fact, I don't consider Batman to be much of a character at all. Bruce Wayne is the protagonist of The Dark Knight, he is an active protagonist in every sense of the word I can think of, and "the Batman" is a costume he puts on when he goes out to fight crime. This sounds like hair-splitting but I think is a key to understanding the success of the narrative and the world Nolan is building.

3. I did want to see more of Two-Face, because I like Two-Face, but I don't feel like his story is rushed or tacked-on. Visually, it feels like a pretty big gimme to ask the audience to behold the unspeakable horror of a guy with half a face, only to then kill him off forty-five minutes later, but dramatically I have no complaints, and as we move forward I'll make my case for that.

4. The Joker's plans are complicated and slightly fanciful, but gee whiz, compared to what? Compared to the Penguin's army of rocket-laden penguins in Batman Returns? Compared to Poison Ivy's plot to team up with Mr. Freeze to freeze Gotham City (using a giant telescope) in order for plants to take over in Batman and Robin? Compared to Ras Al Ghul's plot to microwave Gotham's water supply with his magic microwave-gun in Batman Begins? If you ask me, the Joker's ability to wire a hospital with explosives in The Dark Knight on short notice is a model of logic and circumspection compared to, say, Lex Luthor's plot to build a new continent in Superman Returns.

5. Ditto Bruce Wayne's sonar-cell-phone device. As a fantastic gadget, it has the icy breath of the plausible compared to some of the things Batman's lugged around over his decades of public service. The fantastic elements of The Dark Knight, I feel, are the screenplay's nods to convention and the source material -- Batman without at least one moment of "now, wait a minute" would hardly feel like Batman.

6. The action scenes: I see that some people find them incoherent. Sorry, I don't agree. I don't know what else to say about it -- I have not had trouble following the action in The Dark Knight, not the first time and not when I've watched it since.

7. To some people, The Dark Knight contains some sort of a political message. If one is intended, I can't make head or tail of it. The Dark Knight deals with a lot of real-life civic issues, but it remains a drama, not a treatise. If I was supposed to vote for John McCain or something because of watching this movie, well, then I guess it's a failure.

The Dark Knight part 2

free stats

At the end of Act I, Bruce Wayne, in his Batman persona, has snatched Mob banker Lau from Hong Kong and delivered him to Jim Gordon. He's done his job, justice has prevailed, the cops and the lawyers are united against the forces of the underworld and everything in perfect in Batworld.

But of course, it's not -- Lau's capture is only the beginning. Bruce, in his desire to upset the status quo and rewrite the rules of (out)law and (dis)order in Gotham City creates a wildly unstable new environment, and by the end of Act II, Bruce will be forced to abandon his Batman persona and sacrifice himself, yet again, for the city he loves -- that is, until Harvey Dent steals his thunder and turns, in the public eye, from White Knight to Dark Knight.





So: Lau is in custody, questioned by Rachel, with Harvey and Jim lurking in the background. This one thing right here, small as it seems, indicates for me how The Dark Knight earns its place at the top of the "superhero movie" pyramid: the Nolans figured out a way to get Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent and Rachel Dawes, Bruce's love interest and apex of the movie's romantic triangle, into the plot in a way that feels seamless and organic. Go through the list of superhero movies and list the number of love interests wholly peripheral to the story and you'll see the coup that the Nolans achieve here. Generally, the love interest exists outside of the protagonist's superhero world, which is why they end up as damsels in distress. Here, Rachel is part of Bruce's natural world of interests (she is a law enforcer, after all, she's almost Harvey Dent her own self -- and hey, wouldn't it have been awesome if it was Rachel instead of Harvey who ended up becoming Two-Face?) and works closely -- and professionally -- with his allies Jim and Harvey. Rachel manages to get what she needs from Lau in record time, sending him to jail -- but whose jail? Again, Jim and Harvey clash over issues of trust -- can anyone be trusted in Gotham City? It seems that the gangsters of Act I have a greater sense of trust and loyalty than the law-enforcement officers -- again, they are the establishment in Gotham. The fact that all the cops in Gotham are dirty means that the gangsters control the police department as well as the underworld. Harvey, Rachel and Jim (and their weapon, Bruce) are all alone in the city. When Batman acts to rid Gotham of gangsters, he's stages an assault on the very fabric of the city.

But Harvey is keen to pick up Batman's baton, and proceeds to use Lau's confession to round up, literally, every single gangster in Gotham City. (There was a commenter the other day who said that we never see how Harvey got his reputation as Gotham's White Knight -- well, we see him punch out a gangster on the witness stand, then arrest every gangster in the city -- how much more of a crusader could he be?

As Jim arrests Maroni, The Chechen and their goons, the crimelords come to see that the Joker is correct -- the Batman must be eliminated, at any cost. And so a Joker-led operation goes into effect -- the crimelords turn their resources over to a madman to expedite their agenda. "Kill the Batman" is not the end of the Joker's plan, but they don't know that.

Harvey meets up with the Mayor, to justify his crazy scheme to arrest every gangster in the city. It turns out, Harvey knows that his grand gesture is baseless and doomed to failure, but has a long-term political goal. And so he demonstrates that he is willing to appear to be foolish in order to achieve something bigger -- a notion which will echo throughout the rest of the narrative.

Harvey's meeting with the mayor is met with the Joker's first response to Bruce's plan of cleaning up Gotham as the dead "Hockey Pads" Batman appears outside the Mayor's window.

(Incidentally, where did the Joker get "Hockey Pads?" Was he still in police custody, or had he been freed on bail, and thence out into the world in his hockey pads again? Have these vigilantes no respect for the law, even after they're beaten up by Batman?)

Bruce, up until now under the impression that he had set everything straight in Gotham City, learns the news about Hockey Pads as he's getting ready for his party for Harvey Dent -- his ceremonial passing of the baton from Dark Knight to White Knight. "This is how crazy Batman's made Gotham" says the Joker, again, mixing lies with truth in order to elicit a response. Batman hasn't made Gotham crazy, he's cleaned up its streets in the space of a weekend. But, in so doing, he's created the crime vacuum that allows the Joker to flourish. Now, you'll notice that the Joker's plan has subtly changed from the meeting at the restaurant. His stated goal then was to "kill the Batman," but now he only wants to force Batman to reveal his identity. This might seem like a de-escalation, but it points to the Joker's larger goal, one that won't be fully revealed until the end of the narrative -- namely, that the Joker doesn't have a goal, doesn't have an endgame -- he wants only to have more and more chaos, murder and insanity in Gotham. Killing Batman solves the problems of the gangsters, but the Joker's vision of crime is much broader, and doesn't include the crimelords notions of respectability. Killing the Batman would restore Gotham to its status quo, but revealing the Batman would undermine everything in the city. This is why the Joker in The Dark Knight is such a great villain for Batman to go up against -- there is, literally, nothing Batman can do against him that does not further his agenda, even killing him.



(The Joker's videotape of his torture of Hockey Pads contains images of animal carcasses hanging from the ceiling. This is a visual nod to painter Francis Bacon, and the only link I can find back to the Joker in Tim Burton's Batman, who defaced every painting in the Gotham Museum of Art -- except for the Bacon.)

The party for Harvey begins. Bruce's plan is to ensure Harvey's security the same way he's ensured his own -- with tons of cash. Acknowledging who Harvey is inside, Bruce recognizes him as Daytime Batman and now seeks to turn him into exactly that. And, just so we know that his motives aren't entirely civic-minded, we learn that his plan to turn Harvey into Daytime Batman involves stealing Rachel away from him. That is, he's says "You want to be Batman? Great, be Batman -- oh, and by the way, that means you can't have a wife."

Meanwhile, the Joker's plan to unmask Batman proceeds apace. He kills, at once, the police commissioner and the judge trying the "all gangsters in Gotham" case, and will soon try to kill Harvey. This is good planning on the Joker's part -- by killing the judge and the commissioner, he both applies pressure on Batman to unmask and ensures that all the gangsters will go free -- no one will step forward to replace the judge -- and the crimelords can then reclaim their place as Gotham's true power base.

Back at the party, Harvey, feeling perhaps secure in his future, now that he's gotten the security of Bruce Wayne's rich friends, proposes to Rachel. Rachel, however, cannot accept -- she still loves Bruce on some level, even though his heart is something she can never really have, just as "justice" is something Bruce can never really have, it is only something he can endlessly pursue.



Suddenly, the Joker shows up at the party, in a rare moment of straightforwardness -- he wants to kill Harvey Dent, and so he shows up where Harvey Dent is to kill him. No brilliantly devious double-crossing scheme, just storming the penthouse and demanding the goods. Bruce responds by abducting Harvey and stashing him someplace safe (just like Bruce, in a crisis, to assume he knows what's best for everyone) and then heading off to his Bat-closet to prepare himself for his first confrontation with the Joker. (On the way he disarms a guy with a shotgun, then takes apart the gun without looking at it, a neat echo of a similar beat with Harvey in the courtroom.) The Joker menaces Rachel out in the living room, telling her the second version of his "scars" story. We will, of course, never know how the Joker got his scars, he most likely has an endless supply of stories to tell people. Wherever the Joker came from, whatever formed his psyche, however he came to his world-view, he is infinitely scarier if we're left in the dark. We can feel compassion for -- and even root for -- other Batman villains. Ras-Al-Ghul, the Penguin, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze, we can disapprove of their crimes but we can still kind of see why they are as they are. This is what has always made the Joker the most interesting and deathless Batman villain, the reason why, back in 1989, when people saw that Jack Nicholson was playing the Joker, everyone said "Well now -- that I have to see." Everyone understands that the Joker elicits a stronger response than any other Batman villain, even though they may not understand immediately why. (Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that the Joker got his scars because his father offended a monarch.) Batman appears just in time to rescue Rachel from the Joker's threats, although he must dive out a window and make a rather improbable skydive to do so.

Across town at the MCU, Jim and one of his detectives, Stephens, rue their reversal of fortune -- in nothing flat, they have cleaned up the streets of Gotham and then, just as quickly, lost all the ground they had gained. The moment Stephens announces they've lost, Harvey, last seen being stuffed into a closet in Bruce's apartment, shows up, brass balls in place, to take Lau to court, as scheduled. (We don't know how long Harvey had to wait in the closet before the Joker gave up and went home -- a rare instance of a question unanswered in The Dark Knight. Once Bruce dives out the window to save Rachel, what does he do? Put her in a cab and walk back to his underground lair? Call Alfred on his cell phone and tell him to pick him up around the corner?)

Back at the lair, Bruce discusses the situation with Alfred, who provides some perspective on the whole Joker situation with his story about being a soldier in Rangoon. Alfred reminds Bruce that he created this situation when he decided to upset the status quo, and that if he's thinking of giving into the Joker's demands he'll just make everything worse. "We just need to figure out what he's after" says the World's Greatest Detective, proving that he is completely unequipped to deal with the Joker -- Bruce is a man of relentless, probing intelligence, and the Joker, he will eventually learn, isn't after anything that Bruce can understand.

That night, Batman stands atop a building with, apparently, some kind of sophisticated listening device. He picks up a piece of information and swoops down to discover a murder scene. Two men, named Harvey and Dent, have been killed -- somehow -- by the Joker, or his men in any case, for the sole purpose of the Joker issuing a threat against the life of the Mayor.



Batman shows up at the scene and proceeds to perform a little sophisticated detective work, which I can kind of follow in theory but which ultimately stretched my credulity. With only a shattered bullet inside a brick, Bruce is able to procure and set up -- by himself -- a ballistics lab in his lair to test and analyze different shattered-bullet patterns (I think). Just in the nick of time, this process provides him with exactly the piece of information he needs to get to his next place -- the address of the man who shot the gun that put the bullet in the brick. (Who, it turns out, is not the Joker, but one of his minions -- about whom we will learn more later.

In the middle of the "detective" sequence is another scene between Fox and Reese -- Reese has discovered that Bruce is Batman, and wants to blackmail him. Fox reminds him that Bruce is, after all, one of the wealthiest, most powerful men in the world -- and a little crazy to boot -- which is enough to get Reese to back down. For now.



Now, we have a smashing set piece set around the funeral for Commissioner Loeb. The Dark Knight is like a miniature film festival -- so far, we've seen a heist sequence, a fight sequence, a caper sequence, a detective sequence and now a suspense sequence, all executed near the top of their respective genres. Every fifteen minutes or so, The Dark Knight unfurls a set-piece that would be the climax of an ordinary movie -- the fact that it manages all this and has a complex, involving plot revolving around serious issues continues to astound. The logic of the sequence, for the record, is: Loeb's funeral is being held in the streets of Gotham, Bruce arrives at the address of the guy whose fingerprint he got off the shattered bullet, finds a bunch of guys gagged and bound. The gagged and bound guys turn out to be the funeral's honor guard, and the honor guard down in the street turns out to be the Joker and some of his followers. The Joker's plan is to shoot the Mayor during the 21-gun salute, and, just to complicate things, he has rigged a timer to open the window-shade of the room where the real honor guard is gagged and bound, to attract the attention of the police snipers ringing the streets. That strikes me as a little too much planning on the Joker's part, but then again the Joker is not trying to trap Bruce, or anyone else, with his window-shade gag -- rather, he wants to draw attention to the window itself, so that the police snipers are looking the wrong way when he turns to shoot the Mayor. Which he does, although Gordon blocks the shot and appears to be shot dead.

Chaos erupts in the street, and Harvey, Daylight Batman, corners one of the Joker's men in an ambulance. The guy, who is clearly out of his mind, tells Harvey that Rachel is the Joker's next target, which presses Harvey's buttons and sends him over the edge -- almost. Again, the Joker's plan is not just to put the crimelords back in power, but to force the few good people in Gotham to turn evil. Somewhere along the way, he's assembled an army of crazy people, ready to do his bidding (apparently he's spent some time in Arkham).

Stephens and Ramirez go to tell Gordon's wife (Barbara, says the IMDb, although she looks a little too old to be this Barbara) about Jim's death, and she responds by shouting out into the night, to the Batman she knows is listening, "You brought this craziness on us!" Bruce, filled with guilt and now towering anger, goes to find Maroni and, in the gangland tradition, breaks his legs to get information. Maroni, however, knows nothing about the Joker, even though he has hired him to restore the status quo.

(Does the Joker have a home? His suit, although custom made, is filthy and ragged, and there is a sense of history about him -- the makeup, the scars -- that feels lived-in and precise. Has he been living on the street, in abandoned buildings? If you add up all the things we know about the Joker -- including the fact that he lies as easily as he breathes -- does it add up to a real person? I submit that while the Joker is indeed a fanciful creation, he feels more plausible -- and more frightening -- than Hannibal Lecter, Hollywood's last great boogeyman creation.)

Harvey, in the midst of interrogating the Joker's goon, calls Rachel and orders her to get someplace safe. Rachel, knowing that Bruce is Batman, says that the only safe place in town is Bruce's penthouse. (Although the Joker seemed to be able to get in pretty easily during the party, which should still be uppermost in Rachel's mind, since she got thrown out a window there.) Harvey, not knowing about Bruce's torch for Rachel, pushes her into his apartment. He's taking one more step from White Knight to Dark Knight, fulfilling the action begun by Bruce earlier. And, just as Batman interrogated Maroni and went a little too far, Harvey does the same with the Joker's goon, in his own style. Batman stops him before he kills the goon, not knowing that Harvey is merely playing a psychological trick on the assassin. Batman tells Harvey that the city can't afford to have Harvey be a vigilante, it would ruin everything. Harvey must be the face of "good" Gotham, while Batman must remain masked -- this is the balance that must be struck to deal with criminals like the Joker.

Bruce gets home and finds Rachel there, and tells her that he's going to turn himself in, "I've seen what I'd have to become to stop men like [the Joker]." He asks again for Rachel's love, and Rachel gives it to him, even though they both know that if Bruce turns himself in they could never be together.

Bruce goes to his lair and puts away all his bat-stuff, preparing to give himself in. The dream is over, Bruce must give up his dream of justice in order to placate a madman. Essentially, he will sacrifice himself in order to save Harvey, even though it will mean undoing everything he, Gordon and Harvey have done.



He goes downtown to turn himself in -- the movie's not even half over! -- but Harvey turns the tables on him, steals his thunder and fulfills his wish at the same time. Bruce wanted to turn Harvey into Batman, and poof! Harvey is now Batman. Under pressure from "the people" of Gotham, Harvey announces that he is The Batman and puts himself under arrest. Not only does he steal the thunder from Bruce, he steals the act climax as well, and very nearly steals the rest of the plot of the movie. Act III will trace Harvey's journey from Batman to Two-Face, as Bruce will become increasingly helpless to recover the ground he has lost through his actions.

The Dark Knight part 3

free stats

At the end of Act II, Bruce Wayne was ready to reveal himself to be Batman, only to have his decision yoinked away from him by Harvey Dent. At the beginning of Act III, Bruce is forced to continue on as Batman in order to capture the Joker, the key representative of the new breed of criminal class Bruce has created by trying to clean up Gotham. Although there is some question as to whether Bruce's heart is really into giving up Batman -- which Rachel will address later in Act III.

At the top of Act III, Rachel goes to see Alfred. She's angry about Bruce's decision to let Harvey take the fall for Batman's vigilante crimes, so angry that she has apparently decided to give up Bruce forever and marry Harvey (although we don't know that quite yet). Rachel is, it seems, the only true-blue force of good in The Dark Knight. The other good guys understand that it's sometimes necessary to lie to defeat evil, but Rachel cannot let a lie stand. Alfred argues that Bruce is actually more than a hero for his actions -- he's already sacrificed his life to fight crime in a mask, now he's willing to give up the mask as well, to let Harvey take Batman from him. At this point, Harvey is really more Batman than Bruce.

Rachel goes downtown to see Harvey as he's being loaded into a SWAT van to be taken to the county lockup. They have something of a goodbye scene (appropriately enough, as we will see), where Harvey winks to Rachel that he knows what he's doing and everything will be all right.

Before we continue, behold the structure of Act III of The Dark Knight. It begins with a smashing chase scene, then moves straight into an extended multi-threaded suspense sequence, which culminates in the death of one character and the transformation of another. It delivers the narrative low-point for the protagonist, then kind of goes on for another ten minutes or so. This odd little post-climactic interlude between Act III and Act IV, a little mini-act of itself, maps out Harvey's transition from Harvey to Two-Face and includes the end of the Joker's relationship with the "establishment" (hint: the split is not amicable) and his nurturing of Harvey's transition from white knight to villain. During this interlude, Bruce acts as a superhero without putting on his mask (unless you count behaving as a dim-witted billionaire playboy a mask), and the Joker destroys a hospital in order to cover up the disappearance of Harvey.



Now then: Harvey's transfer to the county lockup has generated a lot of confusion among fans of The Dark Knight, so let's see if we can sort out what exactly happens here. The plan appears to be Harvey's: he knows he's not Batman, and the SWAT folk seem to understand that he's not Batman (Harvey's awfully open about it when he talks to Rachel), and, as we will find out, Jim Gordon is the non-talking SWAT guy driving the van next to the chatty SWAT guy. (Chatty SWAT Guy is so engaging, such a good distraction, that I had to learn that Jim was driving the van from -- horrors -- the internet.) So it's Harvey's plan to set himself up as bait to draw out the Joker, but Jim -- unbeknownst to Harvey -- is driving his van. (Jim, like Bruce, understands that, for justice to prevail, it sometimes must wear a mask.)

So Harvey's plan is: claim to be Batman, which will get him arrested, which will then get himself transferred to the county lockup, which will lure the Joker out of the shadows, which will then prompt the real Batman to come forward to arrest the Joker, and poof! Justice will be prevail in Gotham and everyone's problems will be solved. Jim's plan is auxilliary to Harvey's, and is this: capitalizing on his "death" in Act II, go under cover as a SWAT guy and be on hand to arrest the Joker when he makes his attack and Batman captures him. Harvey does not know about Jim's plan, although Jim must know about Harvey's, but I see no indication that Batman knows about either -- as far as he knows, Harvey is still sacrificing himself for the good of the city.

Now: what is the Joker's plan? The Joker's plan, we will learn, is: attack the SWAT caravan, knowing full well that Harvey is not the Batman, but knowing that by attacking the caravan he will draw out Batman. His plan then is either: get Batman to kill him, or to get himself captured by Batman and then arrested by the police (although not by Jim, who the Joker thinks is dead). "Could you please just give me a minute?" he asks Jim politely as he prepares to "put a smile" on Batman's face -- he's perfectly okay with getting captured, but he wants to know who Batman is first. Not out of any kind of Caeser-Romero-Joker-style desire to "unmask Batman," but because when Batman is unmasked, the fabric holding Gotham City together will unravel.

(Although I sometimes wonder about this. Mid-way through Batman and Robin, Batman participates in a celebrity charity auction, bidding an extraordinary amount of money for a date with Poison Ivy. I got the feeling while watching that movie that the Joker of Dark Knight could hold a press conference, announce that Batman is Bruce Wayne, and the people of Gotham would just look kind of embarrassed and say "Um, yeah, we had all figured that out already. Thanks anyway." The idea that the people of Gotham know that Bruce is Batman and let him run around punching criminals anyway is one that has yet to be explored in the Batman mythos.)

Harvey, who has spent the last two acts of The Dark Knight becoming Batman, now looks visibly relieved to announce that it was all a ruse -- like a bad dream. Harvey, like Hockey Pads, is not, and cannot be, the "real" Batman. Batman may have begun as a symbol, but The Dark Knight insists that only one man can truly be Batman.



The Joker is taken to the MCU, where the second half of his plan comes to light. And as long as we're here, let's work this through as well. The Joker, sensing that Harvey is not the Batman, attacks Harvey's convoy knowing that it will lead to his capture. He knows that attacking the SWAT convoy will land him in the MCU (or get him killed, which is okay with him too), so he has contrived to have one of his crazy minions locked up with him. (The minion, let's call him Phone Minion, has killed a policeman, thus guaranteeing his delivery to the MCU rather than some other police department.) Then, the Joker's only plan is to be taken to the phone-call place within the MCU and call Phone Minion from there, which will blow up Phone Minion and destroy the MCU, which will allow him to free Lau, the Mob banker, thus re-gaining the status quo for Maroni and the other crimelords -- or so they think. In order to keep the police distracted, he has also contrived to have Wuertz and Ramirez kidnap Harvey and Rachel and deliver them to a pair of abandoned warehouses, where they are wired up to a whole bunch of oil drums. The Joker most likely does not know that Jim is alive, and he seems surprised that Batman shows up to interrogate him, but that's okay -- he'll get what he wants anyway. He doesn't need Batman to show up to interrogate him, he knows that Batman is around somewhere and will try to rescue either Harvey or Rachel, and that one of them will die. Although it does turn out handy for the Joker that the Batman does show up, as it gives the two of them some valuable face-time with each other. (Hey -- I notice that SAG has nominated Heath Ledger for Best Supporting actor for his performance in The Dark Knight, even though his role is clearly a lead. They did the same thing with Dev Patel for Slumdog Millionaire. What's up with that, SAG?)

But before all that happens, we spend a little time with Jim Gordon, the latest addition to the Masked Justice fraternity and, until recently, dead. Jim is given a promotion to Commissioner by the Mayor, then checks in with his wife and son (but not his daughter, who will, of course, one day go a little overboard in trying to get his attention). He goes to interrogate the Joker about the sudden disappearance of Harvey and Rachel (The Joker turns his argument back on him -- Harvey and Rachel were abducted by Jim's people, not the Joker's), then, having had his little narrative moment in the sun, turns the story back over to Batman for his big scene.



"There's no going back, you've changed things" says the Joker to Batman. By deciding to take out the Mob, by upsetting the status quo, Bruce has created a far more unstable environment. The Joker also hints at his ultimate endgame -- he doesn't want Batman dead, and never did, despite what he told the mobsters back in Act I. He needs Batman alive to provide a dramatic contrast that will make him, the Joker, more powerful. "You have nothing to do with all your strength," he laughs -- if Batman kills the Joker, he's admitting that he's a failure and that his notions of justice are a fraud. Lecter-like, he tries to get inside Batman's mind, warning him that, despite the support of the police, there will come a time when Gotham won't need him -- especially if he does his job well -- and will cast him out. He tells Batman where Rachel and Harvey are being held, forcing Bruce to make a choice between the two. Harvey is the public face of good in Gotham, he's Daytime Batman, but Rachel is Bruce's ticket out of Batworld altogether. Under pressure, Bruce doesn't think and chooses to save Rachel over Harvey, not realizing that the Joker has given him bad information -- he's mixed lies with truth to confuse him, and succeeded.

(Again: the Joker does not need Batman in the interrogation room to fulfill this part of his plan -- the Harvey-Rachel crisis will empty out the MCU just as easily, allowing him to make his phone call and get to Lau.)




So Bruce, thinking he's being selfish and saving Rachel, instead saves Harvey (half-way) while Rachel gets blown to bits. The next morning, Alfred reads a note Rachel gave to him to give to Bruce. It's a "Dear Bruce" letter, telling him that she's chosen to marry Harvey after all. Rejecting one Batman, she's chosen another. Bruce may be the "real Batman," but Harvey can be Batman without a mask -- or at least that was the case when Rachel wrote the letter. Further, Rachel seems to understand that there will never be a time when Bruce cannot be Batman. The note doesn't explicate, but she could mean two things here: either she means that there will never be a time when Gotham doesn't need Batman, or else she means that Bruce will always find an excuse to keep being Batman. I'm inclined to think the latter, since Bruce's non-confession at the end of Act II is what prompted Rachel to write the letter in the first place.

Alfred is about to deliver this letter to Bruce when Bruce, at his narrative low-point, mentions that he acted to save Rachel because he believes that Rachel had decided to choose himself over Harvey. Alfred then decides not to hand over the letter after all -- another lie to serve a greater good, something especially poignant as Rachel would have felt bitterly betrayed by the action.

The action-packed entre-acte begins, almost a prologue to Act IV: Jim goes to see Harvey in the hospital. Harvey, in his agony, has refused medical treatment for his horrible, horrifying wounds, and vows revenge on Jim, who he feels is partly responsible for the death of Rachel.

It's not an entirely bad day for Jim, though -- no sooner does he get condemned by Harvey than he gets saved by Maroni, who turns up outside Harvey's hosptial room, repentant, wanting to turn in the Joker. It's as though Maroni, being a man of honor, after all, wants to make amends for his role in all this mess. He knows that he's upset the status quo too, and he addresses Jim as an equal in the world of crime -- almost a kind of business partner, which is how the Mob felt about the police in any case.

Across town, the Joker meets up with the Chechen. Maroni is supposed to be there as well, but we know that he's across town giving the Joker up to Jim. The Joker now has Lau and half of all the Mob's money -- he should now be the crime boss of all Gotham. Which makes it all the more shocking when he burns the money -- and Lau -- and then kills the Chechen. The Joker, we learn, has no endgame. There's no point where he's going to say "Okay, I'm done, good job." For the Joker, the whole point of his enterprise is that it goes on and on and on. This is a radically new concept in superhero movies, where the "bad-guy plot" always culminates in some bizarre, colorful, impossible scheme that the hero has to foil. How can Batman foil the Joker's bad-guy plot when he doesn't have one?

([info]thevoiceoffate informs me that the Joker is, in fact, burning all the Mob's money -- the idea that he's only burning half is a joke -- yes, he's only burning his half, but the fire will then proceed to burn the rest.)

Meanwhile, the Coleman Reese plot plays itself out. Reese, who knows Bruce is the Batman, has seen enough destruction that he's going to abandon his blackmail plot to expose Bruce for free on live television. While Jim takes his men to wherever Maroni told him to go (I'm assuming the boat with the burning pile of money, although we never see them arrive), the Joker sets another plot into motion: he heads over to the hospital where Harvey is, turns him evil, then blows up the hospital to cover Harvey's escape. The Reese aspect of his plan is mere happenstance -- the Joker was going to blow up the hospital in any case, to get Harvey out.

In any case, the Joker calls into the TV show where Reese is and puts a price on Reese's head. He doesn't particularly care about whether Reese lives or dies, but Reese's TV appearance gives him a chance to stage a massive diversion as the city goes crazy.



He goes to Harvey's room, and, in spite of being responsible for killing his girlfriend and sending the city Harvey loves into chaos, the Joker is able to convince Harvey that Batman -- and the police who back him up -- are the real villains in this story.

Which, well, he has a point, although he stretches the truth when he tells Harvey that Batman and Jim are "schemers" while he's a mere "dog chasing cars." Batman and Jim have plans, it's true, and so did Harvey once, but the real difference between them and the Joker is that their plans have ideal outcomes, whereas the Joker's plans just go on and on forever. This, for me, is a signature aspect of the Joker character presented in The Dark Knight, a criminal with no goal, just a perpetuation of anarchy. The fault in Batman and Jim, says the Joker, is that they're all about control, whereas he's an "agent of chaos." That's as close as the Joker comes to a statement of purpose in The Dark Knight, especially when he backs up his point by talking about the everyday barbarity of society, the way that society is completely tolerant of death and destruction, as long as it happens to the right people. To seal the deal in Harvey's mind, the Joker happily includes his own probable death into Harvey's notion of justice.

The Joker's plan, Jim's plan and Bruce's plan all come crashing together, literally, as Bruce heads into traffic to stop a Gothamite from killing Reese. It's interesting and compelling to see Bruce act as a superhero without a mask, and it reinforces the extent to which Bruce has turned his life over to that mask -- his daytime persona is more of a mask than his actual mask is.



Bruce's bold decision to step out unmasked is dramatic, but again, he has played into the Joker's hand, heading to save the wrong person as the Joker blows up Harvey's hospital and makes off with a busload of hostages (the same bus as from the heist prologue?). Despite Bruce's sacrifices and best attempts, the city is now in dramatically worse shape than before, in a state of emergency in fact, and the day isn't yet over.

The Dark Knight part 4

free stats

At the end of Act III, Bruce, despite his best efforts and his bravest sacrifices, has pretty much screwed up everything in Gotham City. In the act of cleaning up the Mob, he's created the Joker, and in the act of making his act legitimate (shades of Michael Corleone) he's created Two-Face. By upsetting the status quo, he's gotten his girlfriend killed and turned her new boyfriend insane. In Act IV, he will do his best to defeat the Joker -- and fail, forcing him to face the consequences of the decisions he's made.

As the act begins, the Joker has created a siege situation in Gotham. His relationship with the Mob has reached its, um, conclusion, he now controls all the crime in Gotham. Now he seals off the entire city, using nothing but fear and paranoia (as far as we can tell) to close the bridges and tunnels.

Back at Wayne headquarters, Lucius Fox is alerted to a break-in in the R&D department. The "break-in," of course, is just Bruce's way of getting Fox's attention. It's a tiny beat, but ties in thematically, as so many things do in The Dark Knight, of the idea of the forces of justice needing to pose as a criminal in order to achieve their goals.

Detective Wuertz now takes the spotlight for a moment, as he comes face to face (to face) with Two-Face, who inaugurates his new notion of justice, which he has taken from the Joker (chaos being the only answer to the world) and given his own spin (yes-and-no chance is the only fairness in a chaotic world). [info]curt_holman mentioned the other day how well The Dark Knight balances and interweaves a two-villain storyline, something done well for the first time ever in a superhero movie, and I'd like to take that thought further. For the people who feel shortchanged by the Two-Face storyline, think about this: the entire movie is about him, the struggle for his soul, which represents the soul of Gotham City. Bruce Wayne has sacrificed everything he has (except, of course, all his power and wealth, obviously) for the "good" part of Gotham, the Joker keeps aborbing more and more of the city's power and wealth and then squandering it, and the two of them literally tear Harvey Dent in half. When folks complain that Two-Face isn't in the movie enough, I think what they mean is that the cool special-effects makeup isn't in the movie enough, and that Two-Face doesn't have any kind of outlandish, colorful scheme to implement. Well, that's too bad, but the Joker doesn't have a scheme either. There isn't any "end" to this for the Joker, he wants to take the whole world and send it down the toilet -- an endless project of disorder to match Bruce's endless project of order. Whereas Two-Face has the opposite of a grand scheme -- he wants to kill the people who made him suffer, and then kill himself. The folks who pine for a "bigger" Two-Face story, one to match the one in, say, Batman Forever I guess, where he teams up with the Riddler to build a giant mind-control ray, miss the great tragedy at the heart of The Dark Knight -- they want a supervillain, whereas the Nolans have imagined him as a human being. In any case, Wuertz loses his coin toss and Harvey kills him.

Next we have the scene where Bruce explains his crazy cell-phone sonar device to Fox, the science of which I'll just go ahead and accept somehow. The thing that interests me about the scene is how the same people who reject The Dark Knight as absurd fantasy because the Joker blows up a hospital on such short notice, have no trouble accepting that Bruce Wayne designs, engineers and builds the gigantic cell-phone sonar device, based on an idea he only learned about a few days earlier, entirely by himself. In any case, Fox's response to the device is "This is wrong," which points to the complex nature of Batman's existence in Gotham: in order for there to be a masked vigilante dispensing justice, he needs an interweaved set of checks and balances, Gordon and Fox and Dent, to oversee his work and do the things he cannot.

Meanwhile, Gordon confers with the mayor, outlining the scope of the terror that's about to unfold. Compare this Commissioner Gordon to the Gordon of the Burton and Schumacher Batman movies and The Dark Knight stands out in bold relief. Gordon in the earlier movies was a patsy, a bumbling fool who couldn't catch a criminal to save his life, but in Nolan's script and in Gary Oldman's performance you can feel the soul of a man caught in a vast web of conflicting responsibilities -- he must be a politician, a father, a cop and an action hero, he must be loyal to his friends but also enforce the law, and he has the family that Bruce gave up to fight crime, so the danger he faces, the sacrifice he makes, is that greater. Bruce risks nothing but himself when he goes out to fight crime, but Gordon risks everything he's worked for, the lives of his men and the lives of his family.

Two-Face now catches up with Maroni, the next guy on his list of grudges. Maroni wins his coin toss, but Two-Face kills him anyway by killing his driver. It rains on the just and unjust alike in Two-Face's world, or maybe Two-Face is just as much of a liar and prevaricator as the Joker. (Since we've been told that Two-Face is dead, dead, dead at the end of The Dark Knight, maybe Chigurh from No Country For Old Men can sub as a replacement -- he's got the same coin trick, after all. Has anyone ever asked Cormac McCarthy if he's a Batman fan? And isn't it weird that the Coen Bros turned down the first Batman movie in 1989, only to win an Oscar twenty years later for a movie featuring a Batman villain copycat?)




Now the screenplay heads into the big ferry sequence. The Joker has rigged two ferries, one carrying ordinary "good" Gothamites, the other carrying hardened criminals -- the same criminals Harvey Dent put away at the beginning of Act II (again, an unintended alliance). Batman heads out to search for the Joker while Fox locates him via the big cell-phone sonar thingy. Batman informs Gordon of the Joker's location, and now the sequence becomes a three-way fight between Batman, the Joker's forces and Gordon's forces. Gordon, a lone good detective in Batman Begins, is now the police commissioner, with "henchmen" of his own, and Batman must fight his own ally's forces in order to achieve his goal of capturing the Joker before the ferries blow up. Batman panicked when the Joker fed him the bad information about Harvey and Rachel and made a mistake, but Batman -- finally -- has his act together now and it is Gordon's turn to panic. He thinks the Joker has taken Harvey hostage, and he's acting on a rash impulse to right what he feels is wrong.

About those ferries: setting aside any possible tricks up the Joker's sleeve (ie, each ferry blowing itself up instead of the other), to me the morality of the situation breaks down like this: the "good" Gothamites and the "bad" Gothamites have been given the opportunity to kill each other, and who will pull the trigger? The "good" Gothamites (represented by Average Guy on the "good" ferry) all want the "bad" Gothamites dead, but they don't have the strength of will to actually kill (which is why they need a justice system). The "bad" Gothamites, meanwhile, have killed, they've faced that choice and know what it means. ("Killing is making a choice," says the Joker to Batman in the interrogation room, and the reverse is also true -- when people in power make a choice (and everyone is a person in power), they are, on some level, choosing who will live and who will die. Bruce's idealism and the Joker's nihilism meet -- half-way -- in the person of Two-Face.) In the end, the "good" Gothamites don't have the will to defend themselves (which is why they need Batman), but the "bad" Gothamites have the strength to not kill, which calls all the way back to what the bank manager says to the Joker at the end of the heist sequence -- criminals in Gotham used to have honor and respect, and here we see those qualities in action. It's not just that Big Scary-Looking Convict conveniently grows a soul when faced with the opportunity of cold-blooded murder, it's that he, and not the "good" Gothamites, and not the National Guardsman holding the detonator, has killed, and thus understands the strength it takes to have that will -- and refuse to act on it. When Big Scary-Looking Convict throws his detonator out the window, he is risking his life but saving his soul, but when Average Guy gingerly puts his detonator back in its box, he's admitting that it is not the responsibility of a citizen to mete out justice (the breaking of which rule is what sets the narrative of The Dark Knight into motion to begin with).

Meanwhile, Batman, the Joker and Gordon's SWAT forces all collide in a three-way action sequece across the way. Having fought off his allies in the police department, Batman now gets attacked by the Joker. The dog motif begun in the Chechen's meeting with the Scarecrow back in Act I now comes to a head. The Joker now has those very same dogs, which Batman must now fight. Why dogs? Well, as several folks have pointed out, the Joker is referred to as "a dog off its leash" and "a dog chasing cars," and we've seen him hang his head out a car window. And maybe its nothing more than a visual pun, that Gotham City is, literally, "going to the dogs."

In the midst of this, Two-Face arranges to have Gordon's family kidnapped through Detective Ramirez. Ramirez wins her coin toss and receives only a punch in the face for her crimes against Gotham. (Chigurh differs from Two-Face, in that he insists that the victim calls the toss. Which is why the ending of No Country is so powerful, when Moss's wife refuses to play Chigurh's game. In the Ramirez scene, I wondered how it would go if Ramirez made the same moral stand as Moss's wife. Moss's wife refuses to play and gets killed anyway, but at least she doesn't buy in to Chigurh's twisted sense of morality.)



Photobucket

Across the way, the Joker is disappointed that neither the good nor the bad of Gotham could kill anyone, so he goes to his backup plan of doing it himself. This is enough of a distraction for him to allow Batman to get the drop on him, and the Joker plunges down the side of the building -- and is saved by Batman. (Which points to one of the key rules of the superhero genre -- in a superhero story, the villain wants to kill the hero, but the hero wants to save the villain, not kill him. Bruce, even after everything that's happened, cannot, will not, kill the Joker. And I thought this was supposed to be a conservative wet-dream narrative.) As the Joker dangles helpless, he tells Batman that the stunt with the ferries is -- yes -- only a distraction, something to focus Batman's attention while the real event, the real crime, is happening elsewhere -- the self-destructive rampage of Two-Face. If the ferries had blown up, Gotham City would recover, but if they knew that their white-knight DA was a murderous madman, the whole system of justice would fall apart. (Kind of like when you find out your gay-bashing senator elicits sex in airport mens' rooms, or your law-and-order governor gets caught soliciting prostitutes.)

Having saved the Joker, Bruce must now race off to save Two-Face. Two-Face has decided to punish Gordon not by killing him but by killing his son. Batman shows up for a three-way conversation between himself, Two-Face and Gordon, where they sort out who did what to whom and why. Batman feels that, even after killing three people, Two-Face is still Harvey Dent, and deserves to be saved. Harvey wants justice for those he feels are responsible for Rachel's death, but Batman tells him that it's not that simple -- Rachel is dead because Bruce, Harvey and Gordon all acted, together, to clean up Gotham City. "Then why was I the only one who lost everything?" wails Two-Face, and Bruce holds his tongue -- not only has he lost Rachel too, but he's lost his parents and his normality into the bargain. He's sacrificed more than Harvey could ever imagine, and he doesn't bring it down to chance -- he brings it down to choice. He chose to act, setting all the events of the narrative into motion, including the death of Rachel and Harvey's disfigurment. When people complain about Batman being foolish in The Dark Knight, they're wishing for the strong, always-right, never-wrong Batman of their imaginations. But the greatness of The Dark Knight's narrative lies in how it shows that Batman is often wrong, and completely helpless when dealing with a criminal like the Joker. There is no defense against evil, only the strength to not give in to it. "If Batman has limits, I can't afford to know them," says Bruce in Act I, and here he's confronted with the folly of that headstrong philosophy -- Batman is all about limits, and the narrative of The Dark Knight is, in large part, an examination, and definition, of those limits.



Finally, some folk don't buy that Batman has to take the fall for Harvey's crimes. Why not tell people the truth, they ask, or, if Gordon absolutely must lie, why not pin the crimes on the Joker? And yet, in Bruce's philosophy, he is responsible for them. He inspired Harvey to run for DA, he set into motion the bold stroke of rounding up all of Gotham's gangsters, he gave the big party to ensure Harvey's power, he set about making Harvey Daytime Batman so that he could stand the hope of giving up his burden and stealing Rachel away, he created the power vacuum that gave rise to the Joker. He tried to make Gotham a better place, and failed, in every conceivable way. The Joker wins at the end of The Dark Knight and now it's Gordon's dogs who chase him.

Dark Knight postscript

Over the summer, I saw The Dark Knight three times in the theaters, and came away stunned and baffled each time -- it elevates the superhero genre so much, in so many different ways, it makes Batman Begins look like Batman Forever and it makes the 1989 Batman look like the 1966 Batman. It solves many of the problems inherent in the genre and places the characters in a complex continuum, instead of a hermetically-sealed corporate product. In many ways it is still as broad and "comic-booky" as any superhero movie, but by taking its characters seriously as human beings and thinking their actions through on a broad social level it succeeds in creating cinematic characters that breathe and speak to us. It is also a god-damn freakin' plot machine, a script so complex and ambitious that I can only sit and wonder at it. Ideas in movies are easy, but plot is hard, and superhero plots are some of the hardest of all, which is why no one -- until The Dark Knight -- has managed to pull it off. And then, to have the movie be about the hero's failure instead of his triumph, and then to have it go on to be the biggest movie in the history of the genre, well, that's some kind of amazing thing.

In August, I had a meeting with a producer who has had some experience producing Batman movies. The Dark Knight was still the number one movie in theaters that day, and conversation naturally turned to it.

ME: So -- The Dark Knight.
PRODUCER: I know.
ME: Right?
PRODUCER: I know. It's amazing. I know.
ME: So. You tell me. You make this kind of movie. You tell me. How?
PRODUCER: How what?
ME: How does a movie like that get made? In this environment, where anything complicated or challenging or pessimistic or visionary get ironed out to appeal to the broadest possible market, how does a movie like that get made? That's an expensive movie with a lot of moving parts -- the producers, the cast, the special effects, the location shooting -- how does a picture like that get made, and end up that good?
PRODUCER: Because Christopher Nolan gets no notes.
(pause)
ME: What do you mean?
PRODUCER: I mean, the studio gives him no notes. None. Zero.
ME: The director gets no notes?
PRODUCER: None.
ME: So, you're telling me, Christopher Nolan and his brother write the script --
PRODUCER: And then they shoot it. And the studio gives them no notes. They've given them the project, they trust their vision, and they let them shoot it the way they want. And that's how a movie like that gets made.

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Retire The Joker "On Film?" HELL NO!

Author: Jett
February 12, 2009

Photobucket

OK, y’all can stop now.

I've got -- and read -- all the emails you BOF'ers sent me about this.

Thank you. I'm on the same page with 90% of y'all. BUT...

Included in those emails, I’ve also received requests from folks who wanted BOF to support a ridiculous “movement.”

What *ahem* “movement” pray tell? Well basically, that The Joker character should be retired “On Film” forever.

Please! Does anyone really think that BOF would support such an absurd petition?

Hey, I totally get the passion for what Heath gave us in TDK as The Joker, so I do see where such sentiment is coming from. But come on y'all! Get REAL here!

Look, I love, Love, LOVE the late Heath Ledger’s portrayal as The Joker as much or more than anyone. I never -- even though I was labeled a “Nolan ass-kisser” -- had an issue with the fact he wasn’t “permawhite” (What a crock of hilarious nonsense that was!) I think his turn as Mr. J is iconic and one for the ages. I’m proud as hell of all the accolades the man’s won so far and sure as hell don’t think he’s through (*cough* Oscar *cough*). But…

There IS a difference between The Joker and the actor that portrayed him in THE DARK KNIGHT…

And in BATMAN ‘89...

And in the BATMAN 60’s TV series.

Do I want to see The Joker -- as portrayed by Heath in TDK -- show up in the very next Bat-Flick?

Hell no...I’m unequivocally, 100% against that! (And it AIN’T happening anyway.)

Nonetheless, I love The Joker, he's an American icon, and he will show up “On Film” again in the future.

And he SHOULD.

John Malkovich Set for Jonah Hex

Source:Variety
February 12, 2009

Photobucket

John Malkovich will square off against Josh Brolin in Jonah Hex, the Warner Bros. adaptation of the DC Comics property that begins production in April.

Legendary Pictures has joined the project as co-financier and co-producer.

Malkovich will play Turnbull, a wealthy Southern plantation owner whose son is killed by Union soldiers during the Civil War. He blames Hex, a former confederate soldier-turned-hardened bounty hunter and gunslinger.

Jimmy Hayward (Horton Hears a Who!) is directing the script by Crank screenwriters Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Chris Nolan's Next Film Is...

Posted by: Jett
February 11, 2009

Photobucket

Well, director Chris Nolan has chosen his next film.

And as expected, it isn't his third BATMAN.

According to the trades, Chris has set up his next project at Warner Bros. -- an original screenplay he wrote called INCEPTION -- described as "a contemporary sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind." Nolan hopes to shoot the sci-fi action film this Summer for a release during the Summer of 2010.

Nolan will produce with partner (and wife) Emma Thomas -- who also served as producer on THE DARK KNIGHT.

"Chris Nolan is a visionary filmmaker who continually raises the bar with each movie he makes," Warner Bros. Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov said. "We are thrilled to be collaborating again with him and Emma on this exciting new motion picture."

Don't worry Batman fans, the prep for BATMAN 3 will continue. Remember, Chris did THE PRESTIGE between BEGINS and TDK, all the while readying his second BATMAN flick.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

INTERVIEW: Michael Uslan @ NYCC 2009 (Part 2)

Author: Jett
February 8, 2009

Photobucket

Michael Ulsan is one of my heroes.

And I told him that…

In person…

Finally!

From where I sit, this man is directly responsible for not only Batman on film (the film series, not my website), but pretty much the superhero movie genre. In other words, M.U. is the Godfather of comic book films. So…

I had the great privilege of being able to sit down with Mr. Uslan at the New York Comic Con 2009 and visit with one of my personal heroes. Below is part two of my chat with Michael about THE DARK KNIGHT, Batman in comics, the status on SHAZAM!, a new THE SHADOW film, and more.

Photobucket

BATMAN ON FILM: THE DARK KNIGHT was such a cultural phenomenon this Summer. As someone who’s always loved Batman…championed the character, I was tremendously proud of the way it was received. It’s was like 1989 all over again…in fact it surpassed BATMAN.

Michael Uslan: It did, it actually did. And I never thought anything would. It was just an amazing thing. Let’s go back to the genius of Chris Nolan. He made a film that dealt with very important themes. Themes that resonated with people everywhere.

We know that the story of Batman -- one of the reasons -- is so successful is because he’s human and does not have super powers. People can identify with that. Another reason that Batman is so successful is that his origin is so primal…that anyone in any culture and any age can relate to seeing parents murdered in front of your eyes and THEN going out and trying to make a difference in the world. People just get Batman on a gut level.

I loved how so many critics said [THE DARK KNIGHT] was the most important movie to deal with 9/11 and 9/11 issues. I think that also was something that resonated with people. I can’t tell you how many people told me that those scenes on the ferries…where those passengers were sitting there with that device in their hands and people were thinking “What would I do?” They were actually sitting in theaters questioning themselves and questioning their morals. My God! For a movie to do that on that level and still be entertaining in the process…that was incredible. THE DARK KNIGHT touched a nerve that not only resonated across this country, but everywhere.

I proudly bow before the Nolan family -- Chris, Emma [Thomas], Jonah. Chuck Roven, David Goyer, everyone.

BOF: BATMAN ‘89 is probably the most important comic book movie of all time. And THE DARK KNIGHT is arguably the greatest comic book movie of all time. How does it feel that that status can be bestowed on Batman movies?

MU: It’s been thirty years since I got the rights to Batman. I could not be happier today knowing that everything I set out to do has really be accomplished. Between BATMAN ‘89 and THE DARK KNIGHT, they’re great bookends to that.

BOF: I asked Chris last Summer (June 2008) -- and I asked Emma Thomas the same thing. I asked them if they were Batman fans before they got involved with these films and if not, are they now? And Emma told me, frankly, that she was not, but she get’s it now why I -- and you and all the fans -- love this character. But what Chris told me really has stuck with me. He paused for a minute and then said, “I just feel a lot closer to him.” Not “it,” not “the character,” but “him” like he was a real person. How do you feel about this…this Batman…that you’ve spent so much of your life with?

MU: I feel like I’ve become closer to Bruce Wayne. And I really truly believe that these adventures are not about “Batman,” they’re about Bruce Wayne. And I still believe that in terms of the actors in these movies, Bruce Wayne has been portrayed so completely differently in each one. And that’s really fascinating if you stop and think about that fact. And that makes sense because it was that human appeal when I was eight years old that turned me into this huge fan of the character. And it’s still there…this closeness to…this being able to relate to Bruce Wayne.

Photobucket

BOF: Speaking of Bruce Wayne…in the comics. There’s been talk of DC killing off Bruce Wayne and/or replacing Bruce with someone else in the cape and cowl as “Batman” for a while. I’ll ask you, if it’s not Bruce Wayne in the suit, is it Batman?

MU: (smiles) Well they’ve done it before, right?

BOF: Yeah, with KNIGHTFALL and PRODICAL back in the 90s….

MU: Exactly. You know…you got to remember that these comic books are published with multiple titles each month…hey, this year is the 70th anniversary of Batman. There’s been thousands and thousands of Batman stories. It’s not like these movies that come out once every three years or so. And they’ve got this tremendous pressure to keep things fresh, come up with something new, come up with a new angle. They try to turn the status quo on it’s head and I respect that tremendously.

In the end, yeah, only Bruce Wayne is Batman. I know it, you know it, the fans know it, and they know it. Did Superman die for good when Doomsday “killed” him? And I’m sitting here waiting for the issue when the real Captain America comes back. Hey, that’s comic books!

Photobucket

BOF: You’ve got THE SHADOW coming out, right? How’s it coming along?

MU: It’s coming along great, just great! I’m partnering with Sam Raimi and Josh Donen on it at Sony. And Siavash Farahani wrote the screenplay. It’s moving along quite well, we’re making good progress, and it’s very exciting…very different.

BOF: Where is SHAZAM! at right now?

MU: (smiles) Ah, Captain Marvel. I’ll just say the demise of Captain Marvel have been greatly exaggerated! Bill, we should have some news…a much more positive announcement around the time of the San Diego Comic Con.

BOF: Besides all that and the next BATMAN, what else do you have going on that you’d like to mention?

MU: Well, I’m not ready to officially announce it -- but we’re getting pretty damn close -- but DOC SAVAGE is coming along nicely.

Photobucket

BOF: And you’re writing comics. I know you've been working on THE SPIRIT….

MU: Yeah! I’m writing comics and some graphic novels. And THE SPIRIT has been great. I’m writing it with F.J. [DeSanto]. We’ve got a fabulous new artist in Justinian -- who was great in the first story invoking [Will] Eisner and just kicked it up to a whole new level in the second.

BOF: Thank you very much Mr. Uslan...you're one of my heroes of this genre.

MU: Thank you...it's been my pleasure.