Originally posted by Ryu
I don\'t like that poster. Sorry. Also, from what I hear, Freeman is looking at the role of Lucious Fox -- not Commisioner Gordon. If you know anything about the comics, color and creed match up there just fine.
I think he is up for either one.. I know the rumors are circulating about both, at least according to Superherohype.com . I would rather see him as Lucious Fox, a character that in my opinion needs to be in the films.
And how can you not like that fan-made poster? I think it looks brilliant.
Education? I don\'t think anyone has told you this but batman is just a comic book and is not real. So acurate portrayal of the mayor does not seem to be something that will hurt this movie.
On a side note. The batman series died along time ago. Man I know this movie is going to suck. Joker was the best villian. Why couldn\'t they do batman beyond that would rock.
Number one: This has nothing to do with education. Green Meanie brings up a valid point. The comics, TV shows and other media protrayal of Gordon has been white. Same with Kingpin and the choice to make him black in the movie. Fans was upset . You\'re taking a character they know and changing the color of his skin, something that shouldn\'t mean much, but in the end, it does mean a lot to most people. How would you feel if they made Batman black? Or Daredevil black? Most people would throw a fit, including yourself. Why? Because you indenify with the character and when you think of that given character, you think of him as a white Batman, a white Gordon or a white Kingpin.
Number two: If you was a Batman fan, you\'d realize the series is not dead. Yes, the last two films sucked, but the animated series remained strong, pumping out good direct to video feature films, then Batman Beyond came along and was received well (tho\' cancelled to early). This is not counting the comics, which just got off a critically praised and extremely hyped series called \'Hush\' by Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee. The series is still alive and kicking. Maybe it was dead to the casual fan, but that\'s it.
The good thing about waiting so long since the last installment, is a lot of people will be have put the diaster of Batman and Robin behind them.. Not to mention comic book\'s to films are a huge hit right now.
Number Three: Batman Beyond is not lend itself to an actual film. The problem with the series was lack of good villians. Yes, \'Return of the Joker\' was great and the series was great, but it never felt epic. It was more of a popcorn series. You sit back, tune out and enjoy the series. Where as \'Batman: The Animated Series\' presented some depth to the character not only in the episodes but also \'Batman: Mask of the Phantasm\' , which I consider the best Batman feature ever.
Number Four: You cannot call yourself a fan of the series or be taken serious in this thread, if you consider the Joker the only good villian. Yes, he is the most well known villian, but there are other great villians, most notably Ra Al Ghul. Also, there is nothing to say the Joker cannot appear in one of the next two films (Nolan plans this as a trilogy). This is a restart for the franchise, which means the whole Jack Napier angle can be dropped , thus having it never happen. If Nolan so chooses, he could have one of the sequels showing The Joker under a different orgin story and having Batman meet him for the first time. This film is NOT a sequel to Burton\'s . It\'s not even a prequel. It\'s Nolan\'s own series.
