Posted 03 January 2009 - 07:11 AM
Well, here we go again... The Dark Knight. I've just recently got the DVD so it's fresh in my mind again.
As those who read (tolerated?) my rants about it earlier know, it wasn't love at first sight with this film for me but after a second viewing, I came to appreciate it a lot more. It has a lot of strengths and I think actually that there is one that hasn't been mentioned... although Slade has sort of brushed over it with his comment about this being a Gotham movie. Anyway, I think one of the greatest strengths about this film, and its predecessor as well to a lesser extent, is the way in which Gotham comes alive as a fully realised city. In Burton's films, it was a setting. In Schumacher's acts of vandalism, it was an extravagent showcase for neon lighting and stupidly big statues... but in the Dark Knight, it's inherently connected with Batman to the point that the city itself produced the caped crusader as much as any influence. I liked the complex relationships between the DA's office, the Gotham police, the media, Wayne Enterprises... all of it. It was a convincingly portrayed society that was depicted onscreen and full strength to Nolan for pulling it off so well.
Of course, it is by no means perfect either. The Joker's ability to escape from prison, hold a mob meeting on a boat, rig a hospital with explosives then rush to the harbour to do the same with a couple of ferries before readying a tape for the press and rushing to a skyscraper to set up a hostage drama all in an afternoon's work defies all logic and the constraints of time. However, we can suspend disbelief because of the payoff.
However, the ending still remains unsatisfying for me - Batman taking the blame for Hervey Dent's crimes and being hunted by the Gotham Police Department is not a fitting way to close the franchise... so the final verdict on the Dark Knight can really only be delivered if and when a follow up (which should probably be a conclusion to the franchise) arrives.
Now, it seems likely that a third movie will be made. The studio is sitting on a cash cow so they'd want it more than anything. Although, one can certainly understand why Nolan would want a bit of a break before getting back into the franchise.
No doubt, most of us have read various rumours on the net that are about as much value as an expired bus ticket, suggesting such gems as Johnny Depp then Eddie Murphy taking on the role of the Riddler. There was one about Cher as catwoman as well... which actually wouldn't be as bad as everyone on the wide world web believed. An ageing vixen, jaded that her time in the sun is over with nothing to show for it, would probably be more convincing than a young Angelina Jolie type. However, it's a moot point as that, like all the other rumours, was nothing but a made up joke.
As for Robin, well, he doesn't belong in Nolan's world. Although, he's no doubt played an important part in the comics, bringing in younger audiences, he probably has no place in Batman movies period. It's hard to imagine that a thoughtful man like Bruce Wayne would jeopardise a young teenager by bringing him into the violent and dangerous world that his alter-ego inhabits. Also, its impossible to imagine criminals trembling in fear at Robin... or uttering the name of "Robin'. I mean, seriously... Robin?
Thankfully, Christian Bale won't have a bar of it either and I think that bodes well.... and this IS true. Apparently the actor said that if Robin is in Batman 3, he will chain himself up and refuse to go to work. As far as I know, Nolan has no intention of bringing him in either.
So what could one do with a follow up to the Dark Knight? I realise that film makers probably don't trawl through internet forums for ideas (and after reading a suggestion somewhere about rehashing the baddies from Hellboy 1 for Hellboy 3, I kind of hope they don't) but I'm pretty sure we've all got some ideas of our own.
For a title, I think they could probably keep going with the whole thing about not using Batman in it. Personally, I think "Gotham Rises" has a nice ring to it. They could call it "The Caped Crusader" but that's really just "The Dark Knight" under another name.
Anyway, I think that given the end of the last film, there is a definite end that a sequel should work towards... Batman needs to be redeemed in Gotham's eyes and he needs to be able to hand his mantle over to someone else.
So I thought to myself, there's another aspect of this that could easily be tied into the main thrust of it. Just as Batman needs to be redeemed in Gotham's eyes, so does Bruce Wayne. In much the same way that as Batman, he has taken a fall from grace to save Hervey Dent's reputation, he has taken a fall as Bruce Wayne, casting himself as an irresponsible playboy and probably a real risk as the head of Wayne Enterprises. You can just imagine that when they're not worrying about something like the Joker's rampage of terrorism, the citizens of Gotham are worrying whether the antics of this seemingly flamboyant character are going to bankrupt his company and drive the city into another recession.
Then given that the person Batman had intended to hand his mantle over to, Hervey Dent, died at the end of "The Dark Knight", the course really became obviously clear. Also, you might remember that after Bruce Wayne said Gotham needed its true hero and he had been blown halfway to hell, Alfred hold him "Which means in the meantime, they'll have to put up with you."
So yeah, I think you can see what I'm driving at. After Batman redeems himself and saves Gotham, he can hand the job of caring for the city not to another law enforcer or DA... but to himself, Bruce Wayne. With the latest criminal freaks gone and things calming down, Bruce Wayne can emerge, reformed in the public's view, with a newfound sense of maturity and take on the role of a caring philanthropist, using his wealth and influence to improve the city and make it a better place for all... much as his parents did at the beginning of "Batman Begins". It would be the perfect way to close the franchise off and return full circle.
The only thing that would remain then would be choose a suitable villain (or villains) for the film. Unfortunately, here I would be no help. As I said in an earlier post, I've never read the comics so my knowledge of the Batman villains is rather limited.
I do know that I loathe the Penguin as a character. He should definitely be ruled out. Ditto for Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy... and I'm sure there are a dozen more that should never see the light of day. I read a suggestion somewhere about Rhas Al Ghul's daughter but that would be retreading old ground most likely.
Anyway, maybe there's food for thought in there. Maybe even discussion or debate.