If Miller's Sin City is a hit, how soon will there be a DKR movie? Rumors.

[davids]

Start up? just wondering?

[Horror Business]

with batman begins coming out don't count on it.

[Expletive Deleted]

Why would they?

Both comics were written and drawn by Frank Miller, but they couldn't be more different.

I'd say the success of BATMAN BEGINS (partially based on Miller's YEAR ONE, I believe) will impact the chances of a DKR movie more than that of SIN CITY.

[Ronald Bryan]

Well, if you mean just the rumors, when did they ever stop? There have been DKR rumors for years now, and there will continue to be rumors for years to come. It is one of those stories that fans will constantly gush over how it needs to be brought to the big screen, but more than likely never will. And if it is, you can expect it to change the story around completely. I mean, just for one fact Reagan is President? Half the kids who might go see the movie probably won't even know who he is. That's not to say they couldn't make a good movie version of it, but I don't see that ever happening.

[Forsaken_One]

Tim Burton's Batman movie seemed based on DKR more than any other Batman story out there. And Christopher Bale has signed up for a three movie run with this new Batman Begins movie. So rumors? As stated they'll always pop up. Actual movie? I doubt it'll happen.

Now more indy and/or non-DC/Marvel comics might be made into movies if Sin City is popular, I heard recently Invincible has been licensed (though that means jack in terms of the movie actually being made). But I don't think people are going to think that Sin City = Miller therefore Miller = Good movie sales.

[Titanium]

I doubt WB will ever make a feature length movie out of a single story like DKR. It's just not something they'd see as profitable. Plus most people wouldn't understand it as an elseworlds tale and not a sequel to the batman franchise.


I think it'd be awesome if they released an animated DKR movie though. In the DKR style from that one Batman episode. It's the art that makes DKR look really cool. Maybe WB will start releasing a series of Graphic Novels turned DTV movies. Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come, and a whole slew of Elseworlds classics. That'd be awesome, an Elseworlds series of animated movies. Released with two versions the kid friendly, and the uncut version, like Batman Beyond.

Man, I've got to stop getting my hopes up for something cool like that.

[cactusmaac]

Unlikely.

They're just far more likely to do periodic reboots of the franchise than a movie featuring Batman as a fiftysomething.

[meethraa]

Hard Boiled I can see getting made, though.

[Grant]

They're just far more likely to do periodic reboots of the franchise than a movie featuring Batman as a fiftysomething.

Not that unlikely. Warner Bros tried to talk Clint Eastwood into doing it.

[cactusmaac]

And they also hired Neal Stephenson and Boaz Yakin(?) to work on a Batman Beyond treatment.

I don't see one of those coming up in the near future either.

[Mia]

And they also hired Neal Stephenson and Boaz Yakin(?) to work on a Batman Beyond treatment.

I don't see one of those coming up in the near future either.

I read that it was in the works but got scrapped because it would be too expensive to produce.

[dancj]

I'd say the success of BATMAN BEGINS (partially based on Miller's YEAR ONE, I believe) will impact the chances of a DKR movie more than that of SIN CITY.

I don't think it is based on Year One. There was a script based on Year One that Frank Miller had worked on, along with a Batman vs Superman film and Batman: Intimidation (I think it was called) all competing to be the next Batman film. In the end, Intimidation won and was later renamed to Batman Begins

[blue13]

Start up? just wondering?

there's already a batman movie.

and there was a "batman returns".

[Grant]

And they also hired Neal Stephenson and Boaz Yakin(?) to work on a Batman Beyond treatment.

I don't see one of those coming up in the near future either.

No not in the near future but I wouldn't completely rule it out. They are going to hit a certain point where they are going to have to do something different with the franchise. Right now they are going with young Batman, but between the last movie and the upcoming one Dark Knight was a strong possibility.

[The Joker]

It's really a damn shame that if, or whenever Dark Knight actually does get made. It'll most likely be without Eastwood. He's too old now, but would have been the most perfect choice, 10-15 years ago.

[Ned Leeds]

It's really a damn shame that if, or whenever Dark Knight actually does get made. It'll most likely be without Eastwood. He's too old now, but would have been the most perfect choice, 10-15 years ago.


If he wasn't so damn weird, I could see Mickey Rourke as Batman. He has the build and the man looks like he is 60+ years old.

[Funeral Party]

The Dark Knight Returns is the single most overrated story ever written in my opinion. It's average reading material at best.

[WSLer]

Seeing as Sin City is going to absolutely tank at the box office, the answer is no.

[Jaye]

Seeing as Sin City is going to absolutely tank at the box office, the answer is no.


Why do you think that?
The preview is nothing short of stunning.
Comic book fan or no, this is an artistic film with a ton of visual integrity.
I don't think it will tank... what do you think will keep people away?

[The Joker]

Seeing as Sin City is going to absolutely tank at the box office, the answer is no.

Is there a reason why you say this? Because it seems like everyone, and their mother wants to see this movie. The visuals alone seems to make people curious. Along with a very good cast.

Again, is there a specific reason? :confused:

[Yes its me]

Along with a very good cast.


An EXTREMELY good cast.

[dancj]

It's really a damn shame that if, or whenever Dark Knight actually does get made. It'll most likely be without Eastwood. He's too old now, but would have been the most perfect choice, 10-15 years ago.

Clint Eastwood is too skinny. I thought Sean Connery would be could if he could do the accent (which he probably can't). He's probably too old now though too.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

RoboCop 2 made money but didn't launch a Miller frenzy - but then again, he wasn't too happy with what they did to his script.

Seeing as Sin City is going to absolutely tank at the box office, the answer is no.

Good Source Material, with a faithful adaptation.
Top Notch Cast (including popular actors and up and comers)
A "hot" director who's films make money.
A scene by Tarrantino.
Good press so far.

I'm not aware of any detractors so far - only heard good things about it.

This is the stuff of box office wet dreams. It will attract the arty/film literate crowd as well the LCD's. (not just the drooling comic fanboy crowd)
I really don't see where this comment is coming from.
Because it's in B&W?
I'd say this would be overridden in most people's mind by how stunning and different the preview the looks - and even if it's not, B&W films can make money - Schindler's List for example.
I am possibly as excited by this as I was by Kill Bill, Closer and Life Aquatic - all of which I viewed as my only reasons to go to the cinemas in the past 12 months.

It would be nice if you could expand a bit on that one.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Clint Eastwood is too skinny. I thought Sean Connery would be could if he could do the accent (which he probably can't). He's probably too old now though too.

That's why God gave us Terrance Stamp.

He acts circles around Connery, and could hold his own against Eastwood.

[Buzz Maverik]

SIN CITY will work as a film because those are Miller's characters. He can portray them as he created them.

Miller's various takes on BATMAN will not work because his Batman is too unlikable. It is essentially a reaction to the Adam West T.V. show. Miller really didn't do his Batman stories for a mainstream audience. I like to think that he did them for himself, which is why they work so well as comics.

We can have a haunted Batman. A tough Batman. A driven Batman, but they'll never put an unlikable Batman on screen. The audience would be too limited.

DKR, especially. That kind of intensity and focus is cool and interesting in a young guy. In an older guy, it'd be too creepy. And that would be creepy in a creepy way, not creepy in a "strike fear into the hearts of criminals" way.

[Dussan]

It's really a damn shame that if, or whenever Dark Knight actually does get made. It'll most likely be without Eastwood. He's too old now, but would have been the most perfect choice, 10-15 years ago.


Amen to that.

[WSLer]

Good Source Material, with a faithful adaptation.
Top Notch Cast (including popular actors and up and comers)
A "hot" director who's films make money.
A scene by Tarrantino.
Good press so far.

I'm not aware of any detractors so far - only heard good things about it.

This is the stuff of box office wet dreams. It will attract the arty/film literate crowd as well the LCD's. (not just the drooling comic fanboy crowd)
I really don't see where this comment is coming from.
Because it's in B&W?
I'd say this would be overridden in most people's mind by how stunning and different the preview the looks - and even if it's not, B&W films can make money - Schindler's List for example.
I am possibly as excited by this as I was by Kill Bill, Closer and Life Aquatic - all of which I viewed as my only reasons to go to the cinemas in the past 12 months.

It would be nice if you could expand a bit on that one.

Let's see, where to start...

Good Source Material--A hack attempt at updating late 1930's and early 1940's film noir. What an original idea for a movie. I liked it better the first time I saw this movie, when it was called White Heat.

Top Notch Cast--Two words for you: Mickey Rourke That blows your "Top Notch Cast" claim to crap. The only actor in the cast who has proven that they can open even reasonably big is Bruce Willis and he hasn't exactly been out there promoting the F*** out of this one. Matter of fact he didn't even make the slightest mention of it when he was on The Daily Show last week. But I'm forgetting the mighty box office drawing power of Rutger Hauer whose recent body of work include such box office blockbusters as Dracula III: Legacy, KillZone, Tempesta and In the Shadow of the Cobra.

A "hot" director whose film's make money--If Rodriguez is such a hot director how come he hasn't put out a movie in over two years and that movie was that alltime box-office blockbuster Once Upon A Time In Mexico. And guess what, Mickey Rourke was in this one too!!!!!!!!

And you have no clue about the difference between gross and net when it comes to money, and especially when it comes to a movie's making money.

I'll fill you in: No movie in Hollywood EVER makes money.

EVER

That's why actors always talk about having (insert %) of the gross of (Insert name of movie) and they never talk about having (insert %) of the net of (Insert name of movie) because there never is any net on a movie.

A scene by Tarrantino--Last time Tarrantino directed a single "scene" in a movie was 1995 when he did The Man From Hollywood for the film Four Rooms and everyone knows what a crapfest that was.

It will attract the arty/film literate crowd as well as the LCD's--I was wondering why it took so long for you to get all snotty and pretentious.

Here's a clue: Sin City isn't an arty film. It isn't an art film. It isn't in the same universe as an art/arty film. The Sea Inside? That's an art/arty film. Downfall?? That's an art/arty films. Art/arty films don't have pointless guns blazing and explosions and oceans of blood and bright shiny noises and flashy things.

Please explain to me what exactly is meant by the term "film literate." And be mighty careful in your definition 'cause I'm fairly sure it'll come back to haunt ya.

I'll say this will be overidden in most people's minds by how stunning and different the preview looks.

Which is the among the Top 4 reasons Sin City will tank.

99.997% of the population doesn't like different . you could go so far as to say they're afraid of/hate different.

Also people like to be able to actually see what is happening up on the big screen. Sin City looks like one of those cheap ass horror movies where they film the entire thing with 2 75 watt bulbs as a way to try and fool the audience into thinking that they are getting even an approximation of their money's worth.

[The Shadow]

That's why God gave us Terrance Stamp.

...and could hold his own against Eastwood.
Slightly OT here... but NOBODY can hold their own to Eastwood. Especially not now.

[Forsaken_One]

Dear lord, you're calling them "snotty and pretentious?!"

[Grant]

SIN CITY will work as a film because those are Miller's characters. He can portray them as he created them.

Miller's various takes on BATMAN will not work because his Batman is too unlikable. It is essentially a reaction to the Adam West T.V. show. Miller really didn't do his Batman stories for a mainstream audience. I like to think that he did them for himself, which is why they work so well as comics.

We can have a haunted Batman. A tough Batman. A driven Batman, but they'll never put an unlikable Batman on screen. The audience would be too limited.

DKR, especially. That kind of intensity and focus is cool and interesting in a young guy. In an older guy, it'd be too creepy. And that would be creepy in a creepy way, not creepy in a "strike fear into the hearts of criminals" way.

I thought Dark Knight Batman was pretty likable. He was psychotic and intense but he was funny too. He kind of reminds me of Alec Baldwin's crazy marine character on SNL.

[meethraa]

Here's a clue: Sin City isn't an arty film. It isn't an art film. It isn't in the same universe as an art/arty film. The Sea Inside? That's an art/arty film. Downfall?? That's an art/arty films. Art/arty films don't have pointless guns blazing and explosions and oceans of blood and bright shiny noises and flashy things.

I don't know by what definition of "art film" you're going, but traditionally art cinema is all about shiny and flashy, thus the emphasis on the word "art".... which is not the same thing as dramatic films, like the example you gave.
And even though it's possible that these days "art films" are equated with dramas, your automatic dismissal of Sin City just because there's blood and explosions seems extremely reductive. I mean, would you say Naqoyqatsi, for example, isn't an art film?

[WSLer]

And with less then 2 weeks to go until Sin City opens I have yet to see anything resembling even minor promotion for the film, aside from a showing of the trailer on E!'s Coming Attractions, which is a damn good sign that the studio knows they have a stinker on their hands and are hoping to just release it under everyone's nose and hope it just goes away for 3 1/2 months so they can release the "Special Edition" 2 DVD set of the movie.

[Forsaken_One]

I'm going to guess you don't watch MTV, VH1, Spike or Comedy Central that much, because I've seen the trailer on all four of those stations. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[The Xenos]

Just wathcing a new South Park and they had aan ad with some new scenes. And by new I mean I recognize them from the book. Anyway, I need to go change my pants now.

-Xenos

[Grant]

And with less then 2 weeks to go until Sin City opens I have yet to see anything resembling even minor promotion for the film, aside from a showing of the trailer on E!'s Coming Attractions, which is a damn good sign that the studio knows they have a stinker on their hands and are hoping to just release it under everyone's nose and hope it just goes away for 3 1/2 months so they can release the "Special Edition" 2 DVD set of the movie.

Tell us how you really feel man. Don't keep all that anger bottled up.

[WSLer]

I'm going to guess you don't watch MTV, VH1, Spike or Comedy Central that much, because I've seen the trailer on all four of those stations. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


When MTV and VH1 start living up to the assorted parts of their name that revolve around music, videos, television and the playing thereof, then I'll watch.

Spike--Don't you mean the Emotionally retarded, white trash, redneck I loves my tractor pull and mud boggin and pro wrasslin', let's show bigoted, sexist and racist programming and STAR TREK, STAR TREK, STAR TREK!!!!!!!!! network. Yep, that one's on my ignore list.

As for it being on Comedy Central, it sure isn't shown during The Daily Show which is the highest rated show on the network and therefore draws the most viewers.

[meethraa]

I'm starting to suspect that you might not be a Sin City fan...

[Forsaken_One]

When MTV and VH1 <rant snipped>

Spike--Don't you mean the <rant snipped>

As for it being on Comedy Central, it sure isn't <rant snipped>

I'm not arguing that these television stations are good. I really don't care about your opinion of me, the stations I watch, or the movies I watch. I'm simply pointing out that I have seen the trailer on these stations which, despite your disregard for them and their content, do have rather large audiences who might go and see this movie. I congradulate you on your little tirade but it doesn't really address my point, which is that the trailer is being shown and the movie is being marketed. So they do have something "resembling even minor promotion," it's simply not aimed at you. Which, frankly, I can understand.

You see, for a movie to be a box office success it doesn't have to be in your good graces. It doesn't have to be watched by people you consider high class and it doesn't even have to have you or any of your friends watch it. It simply has to have a lot of people buy tickets. And a lot of people watch Spike. And VH1. And MTV. And Comedy Central.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Let's see, where to start...


Argue your point



Good Source Material--A hack attempt at updating late 1930's and early 1940's film noir. What an original idea for a movie. I liked it better the first time I saw this movie, when it was called White Heat.


It's from a series with both commercial and critical success.
True fact.
As long as they don't do what often happens and change the bits people actually like about the source, and it looks and sounds like they haven't, they should be on to a good thing.
And remember, this is pretty original - for Hollywood.


Top Notch Cast--Two words for you: Mickey Rourke That blows your "Top Notch Cast" claim to crap. The only actor in the cast who has proven that they can open even reasonably big is Bruce Willis and he hasn't exactly been out there promoting the F*** out of this one. Matter of fact he didn't even make the slightest mention of it when he was on The Daily Show last week. But I'm forgetting the mighty box office drawing power of Rutger Hauer whose recent body of work include such box office blockbusters as Dracula III: Legacy, KillZone, Tempesta and In the Shadow of the Cobra.


Willis name still draws box office - and he does seem capable of getting the critics on side as well - 12 Monkeys, Pulp fiction, Sixth Sense.
I thought he was dead in the water several times over the years, but he seems to pull through every now and again.

As for Mickey rourke, yeah the guy's made a lot of crap - but a lot of actors have.
You've left out that he can act - see Angel Heart and Rumble fish.
He's also gained a bit of a career comeback lately, at least critically, with several good cameos eg. Animal Factory.

I didn't even know Hauer was in it. He's not been in any of the publicity I've seen.

People who have been however include Clive Owen, Who's been making waves with films such as Croupier, Gosford Park and the recent Closer (forget Arthur, that was the directors fault) - he is also storngly rumoured to be in the run in for the next Bond. Critics favourite on the cusp of becoming a big thing.
Jessica Alba is definetly "hot" at the moment.
Rosario Dawson is popular.
Eljiah Wood is loved by the girls and big after that trilogy he was in.
Benicio Del Toro is another critic's fave as well as good for box office.
Brittney Murphey is a popular actress.
And that chick from the Gilmore Girls is popular.
(Popular meaning it will make people who wouldn't normally nessecairly see the film want to).


A "hot" director whose film's make money--If Rodriguez is such a hot director how come he hasn't put out a movie in over two years and that movie was that alltime box-office blockbuster Once Upon A Time In Mexico. And guess what, Mickey Rourke was in this one too!!!!!!!!


Rodriguez is a studio fave.
He's never had a film that didn't make a nice amount of money, and he always brings his films on or under budget.
After Mariachi he made the cult fave Desperado, Dusk Till Dawn (which did a hell of a lot better than any other horror film of it's ilk at the time), Faculty, the Spy Kids trilogy (which made serious money) and then of course Once Upon a Time in Mexico, which in my opinion was the dogs balls, but it did make money (and the fact he got money for such an obvious "vanity" project means he's got somthing for him).
Rodgriguez is the definition of a hot director - People see his films.


And you have no clue about the difference between gross and net when it comes to money, and especially when it comes to a movie's making money.

I'll fill you in: No movie in Hollywood EVER makes money.

EVER

That's why actors always talk about having (insert %) of the gross of (Insert name of movie) and they never talk about having (insert %) of the net of (Insert name of movie) because there never is any net on a movie.


It's known that having a net percentage ain't worth jack.
the distributer takes as much as they can.
That's why people usually invest in films as a tax dodge - it's often more profitable for all involved to stop a film from making net.

But I'll also fill you in: Every film make money on video, tv and foreign market sales. That's fact.
has to be a bomb of Gigli proportions not to.

Of course, the flaw in your arguement is, if no film makes any money, yet some films are considered a success' - and launch careers (look how many Nick Hornsby adaptations there were after High Fidelity), then why does it matter if Sin City doesn't?
you say it won't make money, so won't be a success, then say no film ever makes money.
I don't see the arguement, even if I accepted what you say as fact.


A scene by Tarrantino--Last time Tarrantino directed a single "scene" in a movie was 1995 when he did The Man From Hollywood for the film Four Rooms and everyone knows what a crapfest that was.


But people saw it, often only to see Tarrantino's one scene.
Either way, his name makes money, and he makes good films.
But file this away with the Rutguer Hauer thing - they aren't pushing it in the press.
For people who know Tarrantino is doing a scene it's a plus, but the public at large probably won't.
(that said, Tarrantino does have a sizeable fan base who will see anything with his name attached - trust me, I sat though Sleep With Me)


It will attract the arty/film literate crowd as well as the LCD's--I was wondering why it took so long for you to get all snotty and pretentious.


Pretentious?

It is a stylized film so those intrested in seeing well made cinemaic films will see it, and the ad has a lot of guns and explosions and good looking girls, and a name cast, so people who only see movies for those things will go.


Here's a clue: Sin City isn't an arty film. It isn't an art film. It isn't in the same universe as an art/arty film. The Sea Inside? That's an art/arty film. Downfall?? That's an art/arty films. Art/arty films don't have pointless guns blazing and explosions and oceans of blood and bright shiny noises and flashy things.


Seen Fallen Angels, by wong Kar Wai?
That's an arty film with lots of violence and guns shooting.
Seen Man Eat Dog? Same thing.
2LDK?
Battle Royale?
Series 7?
Tears of the Black Tiger?
All "arty" films, yet all feature oceans of blood, and most feature explosions.
I can go on.
( argue Battle Royale if you want, but it's only people who go to small art house cinemas who got to see it).


Please explain to me what exactly is meant by the term "film literate." And be mighty careful in your definition 'cause I'm fairly sure it'll come back to haunt ya.


Film literate......off the top of my head? and for the context I used?

I would say people who want more from their films than what the average hollywood blockbuster provides, also including people who see film as an art, and who have an understanding of film history as well as understanding the language of film -ie they don't need everything spelt out for them (they could understand 21 Grams).




I'll say this will be overidden in most people's minds by how stunning and different the preview looks.

Which is the among the Top 4 reasons Sin City will tank.

99.997% of the population doesn't like different . you could go so far as to say they're afraid of/hate different.


It's more studios hate different.
They don't know how different will do, so they push the same.
If people hated different there wouldn't ever be new types of music/film, and though at the moment both seem to be static, it wasn't so long ago that both were going through major change.

There have been enough suprise hits to show that different, as long as it's good, will sell.

Most people seem pretty impressed with the trailer I know who've seen it - and that's people with different tastes to me.


Also people like to be able to actually see what is happening up on the big screen. Sin City looks like one of those cheap ass horror movies where they film the entire thing with 2 75 watt bulbs as a way to try and fool the audience into thinking that they are getting even an approximation of their money's worth.

You really should add an "IMO" in with that one, (and honestly, with your entire post) because most people disagree,
I personally find the trailer to be original and breathtaking, and one of the few trailers at the moment to actually get me excited about the film in question.

[sikkbones]

i could see a dark knight returns movie being a good idea after the success of episode 3....

[bannermanonemillion]

I doubt WB will ever make a feature length movie out of a single story like DKR. It's just not something they'd see as profitable. Plus most people wouldn't understand it as an elseworlds tale and not a sequel to the batman franchise.


I think it'd be awesome if they released an animated DKR movie though. In the DKR style from that one Batman episode. It's the art that makes DKR look really cool. Maybe WB will start releasing a series of Graphic Novels turned DTV movies. Dark Knight Returns, Kingdom Come, and a whole slew of Elseworlds classics. That'd be awesome, an Elseworlds series of animated movies. Released with two versions the kid friendly, and the uncut version, like Batman Beyond.



OK, now THAT would kick tail.

[Capn Trips]

Actually, there HAS been a version of DKR on screen. One episode of the late, lamented Batman: the Animated Series had a series of "alternative" Batmans.. If I recall, there was a Dick Sprang-like version, and the Frank Miller DKR version among them.

Anybody remember the name of the episode and what season it was in?

[cactusmaac]

Legends in the final season with the new-style animation.

The storyboards for that were done by Darwyn Cooke.

[VietN]

rofl at those who thought this would suck