I Don't Really Believe This Scoop.

That said, IF IT IS TRUE, I'd be very excited. Mainly because Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne, to me, and I think it's STUPID to try to launch a DC Universe on film with a Batman who's not Bruce Wayne. I don't care how popular Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is (and I'm a big fan), but I do not want to see "John Blake" Batman as a cornerstone of a film DCU. Which is also not to say I'm totally against re-casting. I'm not. It's a character thing, not an actor thing, but I am very, very fond of Bale as this character.

Now, that said...I don't see this happening. I don't see Nolan being interested. He was very specific about his Batman films being in a world with no other heroes, and, honestly, despite Marvel's success, I think that is the smartest course of action with this kind of material. Building a world specific to the character you're working on, and allowing that character to be special in that world. As much as I enjoy the Marvel Films productions, there is a generic feel to their world. I've said it often, Marvel Films is making very artful commerce.

Christopher Nolan made very commercial art. I think he said what he wanted to say about heroism and super-heroes in his three films. While I could imagine him finding some interest in telling a story about Superman, being such a diametrically opposed character, I think, based on his other films, shepherding a string of Green Lantern films, for example, isn't going to trip his trigger. Maybe the power running Warner Brothers DC franchise would give him, to do projects he feels more connected to, would. Who knows?

I honestly don't even think that Nolan is all that involved with Man of Steel. I think he lent his name to David Goyer to help move his script forward. Did he look at it and give notes? Sure, but I don't think he was as active a producer as many would like to believe.Will the final product have elements of Nolan's more "real world" Batman take? I would guess so, but I also think that has more to do with the fact that Nolan's Bat-saga was so popular. Not to mention that the same writer (Goyer) was responsible for the original scripts, in both cases.

So, I don't quite believe what El Mayimbe is selling...

But, lets say the WB is trying to circle the wagons, and get the people with a proven track record on board to try to expand the universe. I can't argue that it makes sense from a business perspective, and if Bale is willing to don the cowl again, I'd be happy to see it happen.

I will make this pitch, however...

Just do World's Finest, or Superman/Batman, or whatever you want to call it. I understand that Warners is very high on what Snyder has put together with Man of Steel, if it goes as well as people are apparently expecting, and you bring Bale back, the DC Universe on film is already established. Just by putting those two characters together, the two most universally recognized superheroes in the world (don't even argue - the only thing Marvel has that is close is Spider-Man), you have an epic, event film to rival The Avengers. You also have a cornerstone that you can build from, without eliminating options for the other characters.

IF, in fact, Nolan is actually contemplating jumping into this, I wouldn't be surprised if he was thinking the same thing.

So Brett Ratner Might Direct Justice League

*Blog inspired by a recent e-mail exchange*

At least according to io9: The Most Discouraging Justice League Rumor Imaginable.

Well...

Brett Ratner isn't a paragon of a human being, we know that. Honestly, I don't care. Lots of people are assholes and still make good entertainment.

He's not inspired, but he is a competent, no-surprises director who understands pacing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Ratner was NOT the problem on X-Men: The Last Stand. His directing credits are all pretty watchable, high-concept fluff, with some high points. The Family Man is good, Red Dragon is (surprisingly) quite good (unless you insist on comparing it to Manhunter. I try to take each film on it's own terms), After the Sunset is fun, even if all of those films are clearly "it made money before, make something similar" studio films. And the Rush Hour movies are exactly the kind of high-value, slicky-made entertainments that Marvel is making right now.

The problem with The Last Stand (which is a good comparison, since it's his only other superhero credit) was that Fox was pissed that Bryan Singer (who's, to this day, the ONLY filmmaker who's had a handle on how to do the X-Men) for doing Superman Returns (far better than people give it credit for, but too beholden to Richard Donner's film) and dumped him. They went with a poor script, which Matthew Vaughan- yes, X-Men: First Class (which, it should be noted, had a script co-developed with Singer) Matthew Vaughan, oversaw putting together. A script that checked off fanboy "want list" crap over a cohesive vision. Ratner, was hired VERY late on that film...Fox had a script and a release date, and Vaughan freaked and quit.

I will never call The Last Stand the best X-Men movie, but it is watchable, and the set pieces are well executed and exciting. It also feels connected with Singer's first two films. Ratner understood what he needed to do with that script, not step on the toes of what worked before, what was expected, and keep the shit moving. He's not an auteur, he's not even a "great" director, but he is a workmanlike one. I imagine that if he had come up during the days of the studio system he'd be a "go-to" guy.

Compared to Joss Whedon (if we do a direct Avengers/JLA comparison)...Ratner can't touch him on concepts, scripts, writing, but there's already a script in play. What Warner's wants is a pure director, and on a pure technical level, the nuts and blots of filmmaking, I think Ratner's equal to, or even a bit stronger than, Joss (even if The Avengers was a big step forward for him).

So, yeah...I understand why they're looking at him. I wouldn't even be upset if he got the job, because, if he does it, the chances of it actually getting made probably double. It'll be fun to watch, and probably faithful to what works. The real question is the script, which is what really made The Avengers memorable.


Do I wish they'd find somebody really exciting, with a non-corporate sensibility to really invigorate the JL? Oh. you bet! Justice League's current screenwriter, Will Beall's got a lot of heat coming off Gangster Squad, so I expect it's an exciting script (faithful, "good," or "the right script?" Who knows?).

Ben Affleck (who's a GREAT director waiting for the world to realize it) clearly didn't want it. The Wachowskis are NEVER going to do it. Zack Snyder apparently wants it, but that's because he's exactly what Ratner is, but with visual flair (even if it's cliche visual flair).

Although, that said...the Man of Steel teaser is really awesome.

Look at who Marvel's been using; Jon Favreau, who was fully B-list (if that) before Iron Man, really (and after Cowboys and Aliens, may be again). Kenneth Branagh, who was hardly known for this sort of thing. Joe Johnston, who I think is a fantastic, bordering on genius, workman director, but also has a "hack" label. Whedon, who we know is a genius, but he's a TV guy with one flop film and some internet stuff. Shane Black, a huge screenwriter from 15 years ago, who fell off the map, then made possibly the best film of the 2000's - that nobody saw. They all made great-to-fantastic films.

Honestly, I don't think you can do the shared universe thing with filmmakers with strong visions and things to say. Christopher Nolan, for example, wouldn't want to, and I think, flatly, he couldn't. He wanted to work with themes and psychological elements that would be completely invalidated the second Christian Bale's Batman walked into a JLA meeting room. The saddest thing, to me, is that kind of vision, that kind of pushing at the concept, thanks to Marvel, is dead and gone. Hollywood is fixated on "team 'em up" now.

Yes, Wheadon...who definitely had a strong vision, but what he wanted to say was "gee whiz! The Marvel Universe is neato!!" I think he looks at this like working on a TV show...you can make very, very fun, exciting drama, but, except in VERY rare cases, you're not going to be transcendent. Which is probably the healthiest place to be, and those checks will pay for his Much Ado, and the Dr. Horrible follow-up.

So, yeah...the collective Internet groan may head off Ratner, but the ultimate choice is going to be in the same realm. What I really wish is that Andrew Stanton hadn't so quickly slunk back to PIXAR for Finding Nemo 2 after the pounding he took over John Carter (a top-ten movie for 2012 in my book...screw the box office). He would be an excellent choice for Justice League, or heck, what about Brad Bird? The Incredibles is still one of the best superhero movies ever made, and flat-out the Best fantastic Four movie. I think he proved himself completely with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. These are both mid-tier guys who might take the job as another stepping stone, and represent clear, strong visions of the properties they tackle.

Again, I Get Annoyed With the "Fan Press" (TDKR SPOILERS)

FIRST OFF - NO LIE - SPOILERS FOR The Dark Knight Rises.

DO NOT READ THIS BLOG IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!  

Ok, there's this 2-part article over at newsarama.com about where the final moments of The Dark Knight Rises leave us, in terms of the long-term Batman franchise. Yet another example of fanboy supposition and speculation disguised as a legitimate "news" story, because it's on a comic-book news site. Now, let me make this clear...I have no problem with fanboy supposition and speculation. What I have a problem with is that it's presented as a editorial piece by a knowledgeable expert, and it's really just a guy blabbing about what he thinks Warner Brothers should/will do with the Batman Franchise.

What's offensive to me is this: The reason Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" is likely the best live-action interpretation of the Batman we will ever see, not to mention great works of art, is precisely because Nolan approached the entire arc without worrying about how to nurture a continuing franchise. He aimed, at least from The Dark Knight, to END the Batman story he was telling, about the Batman he created for his films.

(This last point is a HUGE reason why Harry Knowles review of the film over on Ain't It Cool News is so utterly stupid. Nolan's Batman has been talking about "when the time comes that I can hang up this cowl" from the first film...incessantly. To act like him actually having done just that as The Dark Knight Rises opens is being willfully ignorant of the themes that Nolan has been laying out...Honestly, I feel like is has more to do with some slight from Warner Brothers, than anything else. Probably because Hollywood has caught up with the fact that AICN isn't the hot-bed of web activity it once was. You're far to easily read, Harry.)

THIS Batman story, Nolan's Batman story, perhaps THE definitive Batman story, is over. Bruce Wayne has left the cowl behind and found love, peace and happiness, and, Like Kevin Smith, I found this deeply moving. There were tears because, here, finally, our hero who had given so much, who had sacrificed for his city and his fellow citizens, who carried the weight for us all, was given the opportunity to have that weight lifted. From the age of 10, Bruce Wayne was carrying more than any person should be asked to, and here, finally, in the end, God, fate, Allah, whoever, let him put that down.

THAT was the most moving thing in the movie, to me. His virtue was rewarded. Yes, Nolan leaves us with the image of John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) entering the Batcave, and the idea that the mantle of the Bat will be carried forward. Even pointing out minutes earlier that his birth name was Robin John Blake (nice touch), but here's the real thing that pisses me off....

WHY THE FUCK ISN'T THAT GOOD ENOUGH?!?!?!

Nolan leaves us with a lyrical, satisfying ending that ties in deeply to the character, and the concept of heroism, on thematic and story levels. It's complete. It's powerful. It's moving. And the first goddamn thing the assembled fanboy brigade can do is start whining about "where do we go from here?" Not in a "wow, I love the questions Nolan left me with" way, but in a "where's my next movie" way.

Nolan has always talked about "the many interpretations of Batman," he understands that every creator puts his mark on the character in ways that the next creator may or may not make use of. This is Nolan's take on a complete Batman epic, unencumbered with bullshit like continuity and shared universes. What we, as fans should take from this is really damn simple....

Continuity, more often than not, hinders storytelling, rather than adding to it.

Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns was NEVER Supposed to tie into the "regular" DC Comics universe. It was Miller's attempt to tell an iconic story about the end of a hero's life, without having to be tied to 10 other books, or what the character was doing in Justice League of America. THAT'S why the story is great. You can say the same about Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke. The reason these stories are great and live on is because there are no rules, period.

It's only after the fact, when these two stories because so popular, and the fans started clamoring about "how they fit" into the comics they were reading on a monthly basis, that things got fucked up. With various elements from these stories, that weren't supposed to fit in perfectly, being forced into the "regular" books. What DC should've had the balls to do, and I hope Warner Brothers learned the lesson, is say, "they don't. We're looking for someone with a visionary new story to tell about this character, period." I think John Blake taking up the mantle of the Batman, and being the first of a continuing line of defenders of Gotham is fun to turn around in your head, but I don't need, or want, to see a movie about it.

 Plus, I don't think Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be interested without Nolan. I know, speaking as an actor, I wouldn't.

Why? Because that was Nolan's story, and Nolan's made quite clear that he is done with Batman and superheroes. (I would advise all of you to quit thinking that Nolan is hands-on with Man of Steel. His own comments make it pretty clear that he was just there to jump-start production as a favor to David Goyer and Warner Brothers) I don't want to see Darren Aronofsky trying to work inside Nolan's version of Gotham City, I want to see what Aronofsky would build from the ground up. I want to see how David Fincher would tell Batman stories, or Joe Carnahan.

And, yes, those three guys, Aronofsky, Fincher or Carnahan, are my dream directors to carry on the franchise. Not the continuity, but the franchise. They encapsulate audacious film-making with deep understanding of the crime genre. What Nolan understood that, say, Tim Burton didn't, is that "superhero" doesn't have to be a genre. Nolan made epic crime films, that happen to have a superhero in the middle of them.

Now, I'll put on my speculative hat....

My best guess is that we won't see Batman in a movie theatre until Warner Brothers gets a Justice League movie off the ground. It will be an all-new Batman, unconnected to any previous film version, and compatible with a unified DC Comics film universe. This isn't the Superman situation, with a lawsuit forcing Warners into having the Man of Steel on screen, or possibly losing the rights. The sad thing is, that's almost guaranteed to generate a much less distinctive and singular interpretation of the character. It will pale next to Nolan's version. Best case scenario, in my mind, is somebody reads a ton of Grant Morrison's JLA run, and casts Batman as the know-it-all/smartest-guy-in-the-room that was so much fun in those stories.

Frankly, I'm asking the fanbase to just stop. Stop trying to do to these films what you've done to the comics, with the incessant need to know how everything fits together. You've reduced the big two (Marvel and DC) comic companies to shoving out books as pacifiers between the big crossovers that "really matter," but never amount to anything. Every single one of those events promise "sweeping change," and it usually amounts to somebody getting a new costume.

Enough.

Nolan gave you sweeping change. Nolan gave you an ending, a deeply compelling, emotional end to the adventures of HIS Batman. Accept it as the gift it is, and demand that the next version be as well thought out and lovingly crafted.

Oh. My. GOD!!

I cannot wait six months...

I cannot wait six months...

I CANNOT WAIT SIX MONTHS!!!

Inception

Without a doubt, one of the best films of the year.



I've seen it twice now, and I just have to say that this movie blows me away. In standard Christopher Nolan fashion, it's an intricate mental puzzle. However, unlike Momento or The Prestige, it's one that leaves you on somewhat unstable ground. Those previous films left you with an "Aha! That's what was going on!" Inception is content to leave you with questions, and a final shot that's incredibly audacious in it's torture of the audience.

Which, as I describe it, seems like it wouldn't be very entertaining. However, what Nolan does is not the cheap, open-ended climax that leaves you feeling cheated. He's not David Lynch, where you reach the end of Mulholland Drive and realize that even the maker has no idea what's going on either, and is simply stringing you along. I'm 100% convinced that Nolan could tell you exactly what's happening in Inception...he knows what it all means, and the exact nature of the reality that the multiple dream layers are concealing.

...He's just choosing not to tell us. He's leaving the ending in such a way that you can formulate your own ideas, and discuss what you've seen, while still feeling there IS a "right" answer. It's thrilling.

Which is not to say that Inception falls down as a summer-movie action fest. Nolan has grown more and more confident in staging larger and larger action set-pieces, and he really outdoes, well, everyone here. (Michael Bay may trump him on sheer chaos, but at least I could follow the geography of the events that Nolan was unleashing) The grand thing is that the huge action beats stay connected, intimately, to the intellectual thrust of the film, and therefore feel natural and not just tacked onto the narrative.

I really don't want to say too much, because the surprises and twisting narrative are part and parcel of the experience. It is a complicated movie, juggling several layers of reality and dreamscape. That said, I reject those who say that they can't follow it. It's a metaphysical heist movie, and, like all great heist movies, the deal is to explain your plan, execute your plan, and then wait for the monkey wrenches to get thrown in. I struggle with people who watch a movie where entire scenes are spent explaining EXACTLY HOW THIS WILL HAPPEN, and then be utterly confused when it does happen.

Are you not really watching the movie? Oh, yeah. You're texting...Jagbag.

One criticism I can level at Nolan is that his films tend to skew to the intellectual over the emotional. There's emotions all over the place, but the approach and exploration of them is always a bit clinical. Inception is built from a deeply emotional starting point (heh - inception), but you have to be open to Nolan's style for it to fully reach you. I find myself very moved by what Nolan does, The Dark Knight left me in tears, but I can see how some people find it cold.

The bottom line is, this is a summer thrill-ride built on a solid, well-thought-out story, and aimed, believe it or not, squarely at adults. It's a film that takes pulpy concepts and conceits, and uses them to tell an interesting and far more than surface-level story. It actually reminds me on Ang Lee's Hulk on that level. Nolan and Lee were able to take these sensationalist concepts and mine them for something adult and intriguing. That's what I'd like to see more of.

Completely Recommended - even if you think it sucks, you'll talk about it after.