Sites We Like

RealUltimatePower

Poop Report

Fat Chicks in Party Hats

Xbox-Scene

TechLore

NEWS 110 - 44 Comments
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 11, 2003 5:11 PM
I can live with this! Anyone dissappointed that Ashton (That 70's Show) didn't get the part? I didn't think so. By the way, the director did a little something called Memento.     Sweet chicken, mama!
From: Ross Entered on: September 11, 2003 5:42 PM
Holy fucking shit! Not only can I live with it, I love it! This is most fanboys' dream come true as well. He was the frontrunner on all the polls for the favorite. I think he's sweet after seeing him in American Psycho - his persona was basically Bruce Wayne, only slightly (emphasis on slightly) more violent and psychotic. This is great news. Bale is the best choice so far for Batman.
From: John Entered on: September 11, 2003 7:02 PM
I could not agree more!!! Bale pulled off fight moves in Equilibrium that were worthy of a Batman movie. He is perfect in looks, physique, and acting ability. After seeing American Psyco I became a fan of his acting style. I can't think of a better person to play Batman save Ashton himself. Just kidding guys!     Plus with Nolan to direct, this is a dream come true. Fuckin' sweet as hell. I can't wait to see this one.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 12, 2003 2:21 AM
The only person better is William Jefferson Heiss. Only they'd have to rename the movie Fatman.
From: Ross Entered on: September 12, 2003 8:50 AM
I heard Howard Stern this morning trashing the decision. However, he didn't even know who Christian Bale was and was going by his "gay picture" in the newspaper. And when he found out he was British, he freaked out. Sometimes Howard just has his head up his ass. However, Robin and some other people were assuring him that after having seen Equilibrium, that he could pull it off.
From: John Entered on: September 12, 2003 10:39 AM
Howard can be full of shit at times. I went to a web site last night that had fans debating if Bale was a good or bad choice. One fan sited that he was a poor actor to which another replied with "you're fuckin' crazy". I know it's been said before but opinions are like assholes everyone has one, even people that should not. I think the overall consensus is positive though.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 12, 2003 11:22 AM
Bale is definitely sweeter than Clooney, Keaton, and that fuckstick Kilmer. Keaton was actually pretty decent primarily because he's a talented actor, and most important because Burton was the director. The real sweet news in my opinion is the fact that Christopher Nolan will direct it. As sweet as Bale is, if Schumaker was directing again, the movie would be a turd. I think the Nolan/Bale combo will work well. I'm pretty anxious to see what develops.
From: John Entered on: September 12, 2003 1:34 PM
You're right, Bone. Nolan is a big reason why I'm so excited about this project. Nolan/Bale sounds like a winning combo to me as well. If Shitmaker were involved nothing could save it from being a big turd, not even Bale. If cast properly and well written/directed, I don't see why this can't be far and away the best Batman movie to date.
From: Ross Entered on: September 12, 2003 2:43 PM
On paper, it does sound like a winner. Let's just keep our fingers crossed that Warner doesn't behave normally and stick too many fingers in the pie and thus fornicating everything beyond recognition. Still, I think the Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Reqiuem for a Dream) / Frank Miller Year One collaboration that got shelved would have been awesome too.
From: John Entered on: September 12, 2003 3:15 PM
I would like to add one more thing, I hope they scrap the rubber suit. Bale has a physique that can pull off a more traditional Batman costume. I'm not saying the costume can't have enhancments, (similar to the Spidey costume) I just hope it allows for better movement.
From: BigFatty Entered on: September 12, 2003 6:01 PM
Sounds like the movie will be sweet! I saw some stuff about it on one of the entertainment shows this afternoon. One thing that didn't sound so swett - Jack Black is being looked at for Robin.
From: Ross Entered on: September 12, 2003 6:50 PM
I hope to hell you're kidding, Fatty. I love Jack Black but not only is he obviously way wrong for Robin, any decent Batman story should not contain even the mention of Robin.
From: BigFatty Entered on: September 13, 2003 12:09 AM
Yep - I'm full of shit :) There better not be a Robin, or a Batgirl, or a Mr. Freeze. I want it dark, gritty, and sweet (Kind of like my women).
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 13, 2003 9:52 AM
And no bat nipples.
From: Ross Entered on: September 13, 2003 10:04 AM
And no bat nipples. Like Fatty's women?
From: Swerb Entered on: September 13, 2003 11:52 AM
You know what I want to see more than a good lead actor or director? A GOOD SCRIPT. I'm convinced that writing is the foundation of a good movie... look at the Matrix - I mean, it has Keanu Fucking Reeves in it, and it rules in spite of him! Did I read somewhere that Nolan is working on the Batman script, too?
From: John Entered on: September 13, 2003 1:25 PM
Very true, Swerb. If it's not well written than it does not matter how sweet the lead actor/director is. Hell, with a good script even Keanu Fucking Reeves could be a good Batman, dude!
From: Ross Entered on: September 13, 2003 1:31 PM
Let's not get crazy now. I agree that the script is the most essential ingredient. However, it is still possible to fuck up a movie that has a good script. If the director and leads suck and are careless or sloppy, or don't choose to precisely execute what is in the script (a great many Hollywood movies throw in unscripted stuff), it can go right to hell. I will have to do some research on who is writing the script for this flick, though.
From: Ross Entered on: September 13, 2003 3:00 PM
Okay, I looked it up. Swerb, you're right, Nolan is co-writing the movie with a guy named David Goyer. He's a screenwriter by trade and has most notably written the scripts for Blade and Blade II, and also Dark City (which I feel was underrated). However, in his early career he also wrote a couple of Van Damme vehicles. We can only hope that his skill progression continues to follow an upward curve, I guess.     Here's his info:     http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0333060/     He's been in the biz longer than Nolan so let's hope he doesn't smother his talent.
From: Swerb Entered on: September 14, 2003 5:02 PM
Bert, I agree that a good script can be massacred by a bad director or actors, but more often than not, the screenplay is where the shittiness starts.     I guess this Goyer guy looks pretty good... the Blade flicks were a bit campy, but Dark City was an unusual film (even though I didn't necessarily like it). At least he shows promise.
From: John Entered on: September 14, 2003 8:47 PM
Nolan is also in the equation and judging from Memento he seems to show lots of promise. Being that he is involved in the script writing process I feel optimistic about the quality of this script. I believe Nolan is fully capable of coming up with a good Batman story with the help of Goyer.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 8:40 AM
I wish I shared your optimism, my friend. While Goyer has penned some decent films, I don't think he has shown us anything beyond big-budget filmmaking. No depth for characters at all in any of his movies. If anything, an unsightly lack of three-dimensional characters. As for Nolan, I think he's talented but he's too fresh off the turnip truck to know for sure. His brother wrote the story he based Memento on, and to his credit, the movie version I thought was more entertaining than the original story. But I have a very strong fear that his inexperience will be a major disadvantage and he will get quashed by Hollywood bigwigs. If you read the tales of what happened behind the scenes in the Batman movies with the producers and other Warners brass, it will make you want to go postal on their entire company.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2003 9:44 AM
I think Warner Bros. realizes they made a mistake with the Batman franshise and they're allowing of Christian Bale (instead of a bigger name actor) and Nolan to be involved certainly makes it look like they're taking steps in a different (better) direction.     In any case, it has to be better than Batman and Robin -- not that that's saying much. It's hard to imagine a movie hitting more off the mark than that one.     Has anyone heard what the storyline is gonna be on the new one? Villain?
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:01 AM
Current rumor has it that it is the Rah's Al Gul storyline, which is actually pretty sweet. But I don't know that anyone really knows at this point. I do believe it is called "Batman: Intimidation Game," though.     And Roche will tell you: I was a BIG Batman fan back in the day (I have embarassing pictures of my Batman Halloween costume from back in the fat days if anyone wants to see) but I still couldn't bring myself to see Batman and Robin. I am proud to say that I have never endured a full viewing.
From: John Entered on: September 15, 2003 10:52 AM
I have seen most of Batman and Robin though not all and it may well be one of the worst movies ever. It was like watching a train wreck, I couldn't look away. It was unbearable to watch Shitmaker/Warner Bro. take one of my favorite heros and tear him apart like they did. This movie sucked big time!
From: John Entered on: September 15, 2003 2:03 PM
My optimism was quelled upon reading your comment about Goyer/Nolan, Bert. I still have to believe that this Batman movie will be far better that Batman an Robin. As Zilla said, Warner Bro. are aware they made a big mistake with the last movie. Hopefully they are capable of learning from their mistakes.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2003 3:16 PM
Rah's Al Gul would be sweet! And would further indicate that they want to take a new direction for Batman since he's not a well-known villain (i.e. not showcased on the 60's TV show).     I wouldn't mind not having a costumed villain at all. Have Batman go up against some organized crime family or something (like THE LONG HALLOWEEN graphic novel).
From: John Entered on: September 15, 2003 3:27 PM
I thought I heard somethin about the Scarecrow as the villian. I'm with Zilla though, I wouldn't mind not having a costume villian as long as it's done well.
From: Ross Entered on: September 15, 2003 3:33 PM
I did hear a rumor that Scarecrow could possibly be a smaller, side villain as well. But to tell you the truth I don't really like the idea of a) more than one villian and b) the Scarecrow.     Also let's not forget that Year One had no costumed villains either! Too bad we're not going to get that version.
From: John Entered on: September 15, 2003 6:24 PM
I agree, that is to bad we can't get Year One for the story line. Is Zilla familiar with Year One? He never mentioned reading it. If hasn't, he should.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 15, 2003 7:17 PM
I think that would be asking Warner Bros. too much. If you look at it through the eyes of the producers, they are all about making money and a picture like this is about a strong hero vs an equally strong villian. Although in reality, a non-costumed villian/villians an acceptable idea that could obviously be made into a sweet story. In my opinion, it is far more difficult to sell this idea to the studio when their other choice involves a strong evil costumed villian. I'm ok with either, although I must tell you, I'm a pretty big fan of Rah's Al Gul. Any ideas who would play him?
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 15, 2003 9:17 PM
John - OF COURSE I read YEAR ONE... silly little man. Unlike Daredevil I've always been a big Batman fan. (Re-reading that statement I realize that it sounds like I'm saying Daredevil isn't a Batman fan, which may or may not be true, but of course what I meant is that I was never a big Daredevil fan. Of course all this is redundant cuz you knew what I meant.)     By the way, everyone should know that the monthly BATMAN comic (by Jeff Loeb and Jim Lee) has been the #1 selling comic every month for the past year. Yes, even outselling X-Men and Ultimate Spider-Man!     The first Tim Burton BATMAN (1989) still remains the movie I was MOST HYPED about seeing. I remember taping Prince's "Batdance" off the radio cuz it was funky and had all those movie sound bytes. I saw it in the theaters 4 times (unprecedented for me, two times is the most I've seen any other movie in the theater). Not surprisingly I bought the Prince soundtrack ("Electric Chair" and "Vicki Waiting" remain favorites of mine). Plus I bought the Danny Elfman soundtrack, the novelization, the movie posters, both Batman and Joker standees (forgot I had those somewhere!), the VHS video... And yes the DVD when it first came out.     All this made the pain of viewing BATMAN & ROBIN that much worse.
From: John Entered on: September 16, 2003 9:14 AM
If you liked Year One then chances are you would like Born Again as well. Check it out some time. Dude, Daredevil is sweet! Not take away anthing from Batman who is also sweet! Batman has always been my favorite DC character.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 18, 2003 5:11 PM
Here's a rumor regarding the SUPERMAN movie as reported on superherohype.com: "the rumor that M. Night Shyamalan will be writing and directing Warner Bros.' Superman, with Brendan Fraser a frontrunner to star." Who knows if this is true or not, but what do you think? Fraser? I don't think so. I've heard his name tossed out before, but I'd rather they went with an unknown. But M. Night? Hmmm... now THAT would be interesting! We already know he's a comic fan (unlike Ang Lee) so that's always a plus.
From: Ross Entered on: September 18, 2003 6:13 PM
I think it would be a monumental mistake on both counts.     I too have have heard Fraser's name bandied about for Supes, but always relegated it to the "impossible" bin along with Kutcher for Batman - something no one would really ever sign off on. The guy is way too goofy - seems like a no-brainer that he wouldn't work at all.     The M. Night is a new one to me - but also very wrong. It is true that I feel that he wrote and directed the best superhero movie ever - Unbreakable - but that movie worked so well because it kind of played with out traditional sense of what a superhero is. You might say that this is what should happen with Superman. I agree to a small extent, but mostly not, and here's why: Superman is the generic all-powerful hero. Yes, it is possible to write an interesting story about him. But as far as Superheroes go, he's not inherently very interesting. What makes us love him is that he's an all-American do-gooder, who is nearly invincible, and you can root for him. This also involves a showcasing of Superman's unimaginable powers - something that Unbreakable purposely steered clear of - Bruce Willis' powers were always understated. So the Unbreakable approach wouldn't work - maybe it could in a kind of Smallville type way, but that is decidedly NOT what audiences want to see. So the point is that M. Night has never even attempted something like a big-budget Superman movie - in terms of either tone, or scope - in any of his films. You don't hand over a gigantic franchise like that to someone who has never demonstrated even any attempts at the type of work you're trying to get out of him.
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 19, 2003 11:15 AM
I disagree! (At least the M. Night part!) Just because M. Night has not done a big budget Superman type movie before is no reason why he couldn't. He's a talented director. Spielberg was looked at as merely a sci-fi director, but of course went on to do The Color Purple, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc.     M. Night's past movies have all had elements of sci-fi/supernatural/fantasy but it's his solid character development that made those movies. He invests his characters with an emotional weight. And I think he could do the same with Superman: He'd have to have a hand in the writing (that's half the point in having M. Night do it) -- I don't think he'd be as good simply doing someone else's movie. I'm not saying M. Night is necessarily the best choice for director, but I think he'd make it sweet!     Else, we could see what Schumaker is doing...
From: Ross Entered on: September 19, 2003 12:12 PM
Valid points all, Jack, but here's my main bone of contention: M Night has always made very sedate films. Nothing explosive like Superman would require. For whatever reason, directors who can shoot good action sequences (ones that are complex and still easy for the viewer to follow) are very hard to come by in Hollywood. M Night *could* have what it takes, but he hasn't even given us an inkling that he's capable of it. For this reason alone I would not hand the keys over to him.     Sure, he's a good director, I agree with that (though Signs was a ridiculous waste of my time) - and he could put a very interesting spin on Superman, but I think it would be a Superman movie that Joe Sixpack would be furious at after watching.
From: The Bone Entered on: September 19, 2003 12:31 PM
I'm down with M. Night. Just the mention of a Superman film that Joe Sixpack would hate is enough for me to be interested. In fact, I think Superman needs a guy like M. Night to develop his character beyound the single dimension which he has been portrayed in the past. Typically he is the square all around good guy. Sure he has a few inner struggles, but those aspects haven't been exploited and I think M. Night is the guy to do it. I think one of the main reasons Batman is more popular than Superman is because of his unique character flaws and his dark gritty persona. There's a ton of depth to him. Why do you think the first movie with Keaton/Burton was so much better than the Clooney/Schumaker disaster? Sure, there might be a better director but I'm fully on board with M. Night.
From: Ross Entered on: September 19, 2003 3:07 PM
Alright, now I want him to get the job so you all can see how shitty it would be. :) On the other hand, giving the directing reigns over to someone who is techincally "known for" action - like McG (Charlie's Angels) - but who also happens to suck royally - would be even worse. Tell you the truth, the best person to make just about any superhero movie in my opinion would be James Cameron. But he's dropped off the face of the planet, or still stuck on doing Titanic-related shit. Bryan Singer might be sweet but of course he's indisposed. Now that I'm thinking about it, most of the guys who are supposed to be action directors pretty much suck at everything, including action, except Cameron. And even he isn't perfect - he gets dialogue tips from the George Lucas Academy. Maybe M. Night wouldn't be too bad. I don't know. But I do know that it's a gamble that chumps like Warner Bros would be unlikely to make. Actually I know the perfect director for it: me. One part Quentin Tarantino, one part Clint Eastwood, one part Jim Cameron, three parts ass whupping genius!
From: Jackzilla Entered on: September 30, 2003 11:51 PM
Gentlemen - I bring you CATWOMAN as played by Halle Berry. (From Superherohype.com... which copped it from TIME magazine). What kind of a kinky cheesefest is THIS going to be? All I can think of is that scene in Monster's Ball (Berry to Billy Bob): 'Make me FEEL GOOOOOOD!'
From: Ross Entered on: October 1, 2003 7:17 AM
For some reason that picture isn't showing up on my end. Here's a link if anyone else isn't seeing it:     http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/index.php?id= 207     This looks horrible. I've said it before, I'll say it again: Halle Berry sucks! She didn't deserve an Oscar, and she still generally stinks up movies she's in. This movie is going to be so bad it won't even be funny-bad.
From: Creeko Entered on: October 1, 2003 8:25 AM
Halle Berry is the best CATWOMAN ever... for me to poop on!   The movie had some promise, but now, after seeing this pic, I've lost all hope.
From: Swerb Entered on: October 2, 2003 12:58 AM
To quote Zilla: Good lord! That's awful. And to think, Nicole Kidman was going to take the role...
From: John Entered on: October 3, 2003 10:47 AM
I think I'll have to put this movie on my must NOT see list. Sure her body is hot, but that outfit is ridiculous. I too must poop on it.