I liked The Dark Knight over Watchman, because the Dark Knight required more creativity than Watchmen did. I mean, I love both movies, but Watchmen was basically a frame for frame rendition of the comic (for the most part), whereas the Dark Knight was a modern reinvention which set a new bar for the genre.

I don't know how anybody can't appreciate Ledger's joker. My appreciation for it has nothing to do with his death, but for my take on superhero films. What makes or breaks superhero films are the villains. There's a fine line between being over the top and unbelievable and being over the top while still maintining the audiences suspension of disbelief. I think Ledger (with help from Nolan) stayed on the correct side of that line.

Nicholson's joker was fine for the 80. But let's face it - that was a Tim Burton movie. F*** Tim Burton.
[Reply]

Fair point. The Watchmen film does do some reimagining of the source material - costume changes, new ending, the SOUNDTRACK - to better suit the film as commentary of superhero films, but that is sort of beside your point.
[Reply]

Don't forget the porn.
[Reply]

That was a little excessive.
[Reply]

Yeah, but she has a great bod!
[Reply]

Yeah, and I enjoyed rewatching it and following along with the graphic novel and following the changes. I had a lot of fun with that, and enjoyed the creativity that they used to translate it into a movie.

But you clearly understand my point - they didn't have to re-envision it to make it relevant to a modern audience. They just had to connect the dots and put up the trim. And I sure don't mean to denigrate the job that they did, because I loved the movie and the job that they did. They were faithful to the source material, and the changes that they made didn't cheapen the underlying fabric of the original vision (at least in my mind). But this thread is apparently looking at these two movies in contrast with eachother, and I personally see Nolan's Batman as more of an achievement for my own personal perception of what he accomplished.

Not only did Nolan completely breathed fresh life into the Batman story, but turned the entire superhero genre on its head. He brought a stlye and grit to the characters that previous genre's lacked. I mean look at the two Joker characters. While neither films really delved very deeply into what motivated the characters, the glimpses that Nolan does give of his Joker's childhood provide you with enough insight to understand the direction the character is coming from, and why he's going in the direction he's going. Burton's Joker is just another 80's/90's template villain out for power/money at all costs for purposes that aren't clear. Nicholson's Joker was shallow (not his fault, it was the way he was written). Ledger's Joker had a rare depth not hardly seen in the genre.

Which is why I'm so excited about the prospects of this new Nolan project. General Zod is probably my favorite supervillain (my fantasy baseball team is actually named "Kneel Before Zod," and I love to throw out movie quote smack during the season - looking forward to fresh material). I'm confident that Nolan is going to infuse the character with the kind of complex motivations you would expect from a great supervillain.

I'm very curious how he will be cast. I'm hoping that he goes in the direction of the elder statesman, and not the young hunk. I don't want to see a Jude Law or Tom Hardy Zod. I'd be very open to seeing Terence Stamp reprise the role, but if that's out of the question, then who better to play the ultimate supervillain than the ultimate villain character actor: Alan Rickman.
[Reply]

I like the way you think.
[Reply]

I would actually argue that Singer's misstep was trying to incorporate too much of the Donner Superman mythology into his movie. I think had he not tried so hard to stay true to all of that - to include it, rather unnecessarily - his vision, his film would have been more successful. He half-assed it, IMO.

He played it safe and didn't commit to a new idea. I don't mind the focus on character over action, but the character choices were odd and unappealing overall. I think it's possible to do a Superman film with less action and more character. But, again, it requires a commitment to a more unique and fresh take.
[Reply]

Yeah. That could be fairly badass. Him or Liam Neeson.
[Reply]

Just read something that indicates the new movie will (yet) again be an origin story of sorts, but will this time feature a Clark Kent traveling the world trying to decide whether or not to become Superman.

And they're apparently trying to rush this out asap, which is part of the reason Snyder got the gig.
[Reply]

Neeson will probably end up being cast as Jor-El. His business card should read "Mentors R Us." :-)
[Reply]

Christopher Nolan is involved, so Jor-El will probably be Michael Caine.
[Reply]

Maybe he'll use Morgan Freeman. :-)
[Reply]

Heh, a black superman. I can imagine the internet outrage. :-)
[Reply]

Nolan isn't directing so I wouldn't expect to see him in this flick.
[Reply]