Topics

From Beetlejuice (film) WIKI page:

In June 2010, Michael Keaton announced his interest in returning for a Beetlejuice sequel.[37][38] On September 8, 2011, IGN reported that Seth Grahame-Smith, author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, is currently working on a new Beetlejuice movie.[39] On October 27, 2011, Smith revealed more information about the project, stating that the film is a sequel to Beetlejuice that takes place 26 years after the original film.

http://perezhilton.com/2012-01-14-tim-burton-interest-directing-beetlejuice-2#.TzMmYMWJeZc

Just another internet rumor? or is any of this concrete ?

If it's true, then i don't have to express mine my excitement. If Tim Burton's on board most likely back in the directing chair, i couldn't see any harm done (ie. some flat studio-made sequal/remake ).

This my first topic here. I am a fan of all the Bat-Films ( well...most of them ), I'm a huge fan of the comics/graphic novels as well (Hush and No Man's Land are my favs), and i wanted to put my two cents in on the Burton/Nolan War that's been going on ever since Begins was released.

Firstly, i have NOTHING against the Nolan films, i think they're good movies, and i can not wait for the new one. but come on, there NOT perfect, as everyone seems to deem them to be. Now as WELL DONE as they are, I really enjoy the in depth story-telling, that Nolan aims for , but the films as a whole just don't seem to "feel" Batman to me.

It also seems the Burton films are being completely shunned nowadays. As if no one liked them to begin with, they're almost becoming under-rated and under appreciated.

I just don't like the sudden bashing, just because its a popular target.

Now theres pros and cons to both. We all know the Burton films live in their own cannon (unless you count the BTAS which is kind of a animated sequel), which is fine, literature is re-interpreted all the time in different media, while the Nolan films are much more loyal to the original source material such as "Batman not killing" and so forth. Nolan goes for a real-world universe to make the character believable, Burton makes his own Gotham City to make the character believable. Looking back though, all the characters in the Nolan films all talk the same (aside from Ledger's quirky voice-work), it's as if each one is giving a monotone speech in every scene ("i was meant to inspire good", "you die a hero" "this city deserves a class of criminal" etc.) Burton actually took time to stop and get to know the characters, it's little scenes like in Batman 89, where Bruce and Vicki enjoy hearing Alfred tell stories about raising him, you don't have that bittersweet character work in the Nolan films, even though it doesnt do much for the story, it really makes the characters feel genuine and real. same with the 'it's supposed to be cold" scene, little things here and there make the characters believable  in this stylistic universe. It seems Nolan spends too much time trying to create these complex and intricate plots to really give us a chance to connect with any of the characters. Even though its a more realistic setting, the dialogue and character work is so straight and direct, the characters seem almost phony.

The best way to say it is that to me, the Burton films are REAL people in a fake setting, and the Nolan films are FAKE people in a real setting.

That's just my two cents, what do you guys think?