Batman Almost Pulls A Joker On Us … Almost

Arkham Knight Season Pass Details Announced

Several days ago, I had the wind taken out of my bat-sails when WB Games announced the season pass for the upcoming Batman: Arkham Knight game would be $40, and NO specifics were given. All anyone could guess was the pass included new story missions, challenge maps, and maybe a few character skins. Of course, the internet cries were loud and clear: How the heck could WB Games expect people to pay an extra $40 on top of the $60 initial purchase price on essentially a blind leap of faith?

It was destined to be the lone smear in the magnificent history of the Arkham games, but fortunately, publisher WB Games has performed a mea culpa, sort of: It's announced the first details of the content inside the $40 season pass, and I kind of like it.

As part of the new pass, players will be able to play in an original prequel storyline as Batgirl. It's not known how long the campaign will be, but it's a great addition to the Batman universe considering Barbara Gordon now serves as Bruce's wheelchair-bound in-ear support, Oracle. Might we see events leading up to her partial paralysis at the hands of the Joker? We can only hope.

First artwork for Batgirl prequel storyline

Other content that will make up the $40 season pass include: new Batman story missions, with the promise of "legendary super villains invading Gotham City," and players being able to drive different versions of the Batmobile throughout the Caped Crusader's 75-year history on custom race tracks. The "super villains" line has me a bit concerned. I'm not the biggest fan of DLC, and I'd hate to see key baddies get held out of the main storyline.

As for the new Batmobile tracks, I can't really say if I'm excited or not since I haven't had any hands-on time with the new Batmobile mechanics in Arkham Knight. All of the previews look fantastic, but nothing beats having some one-on-one time with the game. All I know is I better see the 1989 Tim Burton Batmobile and the Batman Begins-era Tumbler. Those are my two favorite iterations of the Bat's ride.

Finally, the last piece of content in the pass will include the expected set of challenge maps and character skins. I've never been one to applaud the challenge maps or skins in Arkham, but I know people dig 'em, so I shouldn't complain. In any case, WB is promising more details soon, but it's good to at least have a peek under the DLC hood ahead of the game's release next month. I'm not sure if I'm ready to say the $40 purchase price is justified, but it's definitely got my attention.

Batman Arkham Knight releases June 24th on PS4, XBOX One, and PC.

It's A New Day In Arkham

Batman: Arkham Origins Takes Big Leap Into Multiplayer

Batman. A superhero with no superpowers...unless of course, you count his bank account having the ability to regenerate at an extraordinary rate.

Still, the Caped Crusader is hailed as one of the most influential and important superheroes around, and I can't help but smile at how respectful the Arkham video game franchise has been to the mythos of the Batman, including the upcoming Arkham Origins game.

Joker can throw a hell of a housewarming!

Starting back in 2009, a little powerhouse developer known as Rocksteady released a beautiful game called Batman: Arkham Asylum. The hype was palpable, but it didn't really start out that way. As the game got closer to launch, I remember how bad I could taste the game. It got a lot of coverage considering they were using the original voice of Kevin Conroy as the Dark Knight and Mark Hamill as the Joker. In some shameful honesty, the game didn't really fly too high on my radar due to the track record of awfulness that previous Batman games have had. I wasn't holding my breath. But then, like a remote controlled batarang to the back of my head, something magical happened: the game was phenomenal. Now, I'm hoping we can capture lightning in a bottle twice with this latest entry of the Arkham franchise.

I don't think anyone ever doubted that the sequel to Arkham Asylum, Arkham City, wouldn't live up to the hype. It totally did, delivering an even grander scale of environments than the first game, and a villain roster that would make Harvey Dent's bad-side blush. However, I don't think the same could be said of this next game in the esteemed franchise, especially because it's a prequel...At least, not at first.

Deathstroke: a stroke of genius

Arkham Origins had a rocky start (pun intended) when it was announced. The main reason? Rocksteady wasn't developing it. The team behind the first two marvelous games decided to pass the torch to another developer, while it goes off to develop some other gem (which may end up being a next-gen Arkham game...just my hypothesis). Instead, Warner Bros. Montreal decided to take the reins and give us a gritty take of the Dark Knight as he starts to make a name for himself in Gotham City. With the idea of a more inexperienced Batman at the helm, this became concern #1 in my book. how could I play as a fallible Batman? And how was an Arkham game going to strive without Rocksteady?

These Two: Bosses

Concern #2 came along when it was discovered that Kevin Conroy would NOT be reprising his role as Batman; well, at least in this iteration. You can click here to learn more about what I'm talking about. Anyway, adding onto Concern #2 was the already well known fact that Mark Hamill was also NOT going to be back as the Joker. For too long both these men have been synonymous with their fictitious counterparts, and it's a little jarring to hear the news that they weren't going to be involved.

My last concern: Black Mask was going to be one of the main antagonists. Now, hear me out first. I'm not saying that he's not worthy of the opportunity to make Batman's life a living hell, but Black Mask was alwys one of those villains who was too cartoonish, never really bringing out major character developments from the Batman/Bruce Wayne the way Joker or Scarecrow could. That is of course, until I saw this initial trailer for the game.



Did you have fun? Are the endless possibilities of this game starting to get you excited? I know it did for me, and this trailer didn't even have the more classic Batman villains in it.

Anyway, my negative perception of Arkham Origins really started to sway after this trailer. Granted, it's a full CG trailer that doesn't reveal any tidbit of gameplay, but it's a great start. The near 5-minutes of awesomeness showed me many things: where the story is going, the mood of the game, the ferocity that is still intact of the Arkham series. But it also showed me one other major thing: a franchise willing to take a risk.

Black Mask looks to play a major role this time around

Arkham Origins is clearly not going to settle with the same formula of its predecessors. Any concerns of the inclusion of bottom-tier villains should've subsided after seeing how brutal Deathstroke was in his scuffle with Batman. My fears were also quelled when I saw Deadshot and Black Mask pull their weight, intimidating fans worldwide. And then it hit me! Holy crap, you can have a full game with these villains alone and it'd still be awesome, and yet, there are still more villains that have been confirmed for the game that we haven't even seen yet, including Penguin, Bane, and the laughbox of terror himself, the Joker.

Roger Craig Smith has a nice resume

And then the good news continued to roll. The voice actors taking over for Conroy and Hamill were revealed to be two very well respected talents in the industry. Batman is being voiced by Roger Craig Smith, who's better known to the world as Ezio Auditore from Assassin's Creed and Chris Redfield from Resident Evil, while Joker is being voiced by Troy Baker, who's played the lead roles in Bioshock: Infinite and The Last Of Us (seriously...go play this game already!!!).

And then more good news. All of the major gaming sites were able to get their hands on a demo of the game at E3 this year, and they're proud to report the gameplay is very similar to the previous Arkham games and then some! There are said to be some nice improvements to detective mode, gadgets, and combat, as well as another villain reveal, one which I never knew about until recently, Copperhead. And to be honest, she looks deadlier than all of my ex-girlfriends combined, minus the whole contortion stuff. Check out the reveal trailer below.



I don't know if I should feel terrorized or aroused? Anyway, brace yourselves for another youtube video...because this is actually going to be a lot like going to the Olive Garden: it sounds like a bad idea, but my God is it delicious.



MULTIPLAYER!!! The 4-syllable word that forces gamers to gouge their eyeballs and start shooting black-tar heroin. It was recently announced that Origins will include an adversarial multiplayer...but it's an adversarial multiplayer with a twist -- 3 VS. 3 VS. 2 -- You may now proceed with draining the brain ooze.

Three teams of players will be going at each other in a conquest/deathmatch game-type comprised of heroes and villains. Batman and Robin will be perched in stealth/darkness while trying to take down two other teams of rival gangs made up of Joker's and Bane's goons.

Excuse me, sir. You've got red on you

Why am I so excited about this mode? Well, because it fits so well into this universe. And it's also being developed by another team so that way WB Montreal can focus on delivering an epic single player experience. In any case, if you take a closer look at this multiplayer, it seems to resemble another popular game, and one of my favorite Online games, Splinter Cell. The stealth and gunplay of the three different teams makes it appear to draw heavily from Splinter Cell's "Spies vs. Mercs" game type. And that's not a bad thing, because Spies vs. Mercs had the potential to include some of the fiercest and memorable online multiplayer experiences in gaming.

All in all, I cannot wait for Arkham Origins. As we inch close to that October release date of the game, Origins continually impresses me and I don't want it to stop. I'm kind of a pain in the ass to impress, especially when it comes to Batman. But Origins seems to be hitting all the right notes it needs to: Story, Presentation, Originality, Consistency, and Depth. Now all I need is a bat-gadget that makes time slip by faster.

Don't Tease Me, Bro!

The State Of Today's Movie Trailers

I had an epiphany about the way our nerd culture works these days ... We are similar to kids who love to rummage through their parents closets before Christmas to find presents.

With just a week to go until my midnight release of "The Dark Knight Rises," I find myself in a conflict of the ages: The never-ending fight against the nefarious spoiler. Typically, summer blockbusters are the cash cows of the movie industry, but it's getting to a point where movie marketing is batardizing the work of a film. Allow me to explain beginning with this video....



That was the trailer to the Liam Neeson 'Taken' meets 'Call of the Wild' film, "The Grey." By the way it's marketed, Liam Neeson is going to go CIA on those mother-flipping wolves to defend his fellow plane-crash comrades who are caught in the same terrible elements that he is. Now, fast-forward two hours later after watching the film, and you'll immediately start to yell at the screen during the credits, "Where's my frickin Wolf-Punching?!?!"

These tools only have a 5 second use to them

If you haven't watched "The Grey," and don't mind me spoiling a few things (this movie came out months ago, seriously, get on it) -- you'll notice a very different film than what was marketed to you, and that's not a knock on the film. After my initial uproar over what had just happened, I settled down for about 10 minutes, and reflected on the film itself, rather than the marketed garbage that was put on TV and the Internet. Sure, I found a movie that was about a group of plane-crash survivors trying to avoid being turned into wolf-shit on the Alaskan mountains, but if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a very well-acted, thematic film, that touches upon a very core fear many men face: Do you have the will to live when pitted against sure-death? Suffice to say, this film isn't an action fest featuring Liam Neeson ripping the jugulars out of the four-legged beasts, but is instead about how a man at the end of his rope copes with the realization that he wants to live. It's a fantastic film on its own merit, but many people scolded it because of the marketing...and this is what really got me thinking.

I started to analyze the way film's are marketed to us. In the case of "The Grey," audiences were duped into thinking they were going to watch a feral slugfest between Neeson and CGI wolves. WRONG! Many people left the film unhappy, when it was (in my opinion) a very powerful film dealing with the way men deal with their mortality. The point is, Hollywood falsely marketed the film from what it really was. You can't deny it. They show Neeson running up to the wolf, with his cracked mini-vodka bottles taped to his hand like he's a 6'5" Wolverine, and you're expecting to see an epic battle. But it was not to be. And that's not a fault of the film, but rather, the marketing. It led you to believe this was an action set-piece just so they could get your ass into the movie-theater. I understand the need to fill the lines at the box office, but there needs to be a sense of trust between movie-goers and Hollywood. I had the same reaction so many other people had to the film: pissed off that I didn't get my wolf-punching ... but since I'm the type of person who loves to reflect on film I just watched, I was able to come away with the bigger picture and ended up enjoying it. I can't tell you how many people I know who will simply brush off a movie because their initial reaction was simply "it sucked."

Hollywood insists on ruining what will surely be a surprise performance by Tom Hardy as Bane

This leads me to my next point. Hollywood marketing is becoming way too invasive and revealing. Gone are the days where you would watch the trailer, get a taste for what's to come, and wait until the film is released. Instead, we now have four 2-minute trailers, five TV Spots, a full 13-minute behind the scenes featurette, online publication 'set visits,' even entire prologue sequences being released. The only way I can personify the problem is that Hollywood is becoming that douchebag frat guy who is inviting you to the party of the century, but he bombards you with daily, unnecessary, facebook updates.

Wanna know how I got these scars? Watching too many trailers

Going back to my battle now with "The Dark Knight Rises." Ask anyone and they will attest to you how flippin' excited I am about this movie. The Chris Nolan Batman reboot has been astonishing for the past 7 years, and I'll be sad to see it all end on July 20th. However, I ran into a pitfall in my excitement for Nolan's 2nd Bat-outing, "The Dark Knight." There was similar hype to that film, and with it, came the endless churning of new trailers, clips, featurettes, and hell, even the release of an entire 5-minute prologue sequence that featured a tense bank-robbery sequence (which clearly pays homage to Al Pacino's "Heat") revealing Heath Ledger as the Joker. I naively watched all of these things before the film. Unfortunately, I feel it had a negative effect on my movie-watching experience because I don't think I enjoyed "The Dark Knight" as much as I could have....

That's not to say I didn't love the movie. The point is, being inundated with clips, trailers, previews, featurettes, TV Spots, and so on and so forth allows your audience to piece together the major story beats of your film. Here's what I mean (using Dark Knight as an example). Almost everyone watched the Bank-heist prologue...great stuff. Then, watching the trailers, you can start to see the semblance of plot points. Joker says stuff like "Evening Commissioner" so you know Gordon becomes Commissioner somehow. Worse yet, they spoiled his iconic line of "Why So Serious?" Then, if you're someone like me, you start reading the online articles interviewing cast and crew of the film, and they start to talk about the direction, their stunts, and so forth. By the time you get to the TV Spots, you've pretty much got a good chunk of the movie ruined for you. Not to mention as you're in the process of watching your film, you'll have that moment where you say "Oh wait, that part from the trailers hasn't come up yet."

The point of that rant is ... why spoil the fun? Just enjoy the anticipation and go along for the ride. I know that's what happened to me when I watched "Batman Begins" way back in 2005. I maybe only watched the main 3 trailers, and because of that, I was able to overlook some of the film's major shortcomings. (I'm looking at you Katie Holmes and unnecessary Batman horse-voice)

Hulk is actually whispering in Iron-Man's ear

Of course, this marketing fiasco isn't just happening with select films. I'm sure by now you've all seen "Avengers." If you re-watch the trailers, you'll notice clips that didn't even make it into the final cut of the film, or didn't play out the way they were advertised. (Look at the part with RDJ telling Cap "Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist" and it plays out differently) There's also a point in the trailers that spoils how the Hulk saves a free-falling Iron-Man, when in the movie, it was meant to play out as an emotional climax to the New York City battle. As I watched it I knew Hulk was going to save him because I saw it in the trailers.

Perhaps even a bigger crime was committed with movie trailers in recent days. I just watched the trailer to the new Judge Dredd movie and while it looks interesting, it looks like they gave away a major plot point with the possible killing of the film's alleged central-villain. See below for yourself...



Hollywood needs to stop harassing audiences to watch their movies. Advertisement is necessary, but you don't want to over-saturate us with your product to the point we're sick of it. Also, can we PLEASE stop revealing major plot points and action set pieces. If we can't come to a compromise, then I'll need to continue adopting my simple method of preparing for a film. Watch the film's official teaser trailer ... and THAT'S IT! Avoid online articles, turn your head when you see a TV spot, and flip the bird to any online trolls who want to spoil the film to you, which may or may not include clips of the film.

You just got trolled America

Surprises are not always bad. Many can be good, just look at the Batman Begins reveal of the real Ra's Al Ghul. It was a sucker punch for the ages, and no one was the wiser, and damn it if anyone is going to ruin Dark Knight Rises for me...

It's A Bird, It's A Plane...No, It's Super-HYPE

Flurry Of Pics Surfacing From Upcoming DC Movies

Set pictures. You either love 'em or hate 'em. The upcoming and overly anticipated films Superman: Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises have been releasing some exciting pictures as of late. Today was a big bombshell, with the first pic released of British actor Henry Cavill in full garb as Kal-el, or as he's better known to the world...Superman. Take a look-see...

So Mr. Kent...Will you be making a withdrawal today sir?

Refreshing isn't it? The costume looks somewhat reminiscent of Bryan Singer's take of Superman back in 2006 with the damper, less vibrant colors. There are some big differences when you look closer though. First, the iconic "S" symbol is a little higher up on the chest, and the cape is a lot longer than we're used to. Anyone reminded of "300?" A film which was no-so coincidentally directed by Zack Snyder, the same man behind the helm of this new Superman. 

The costume also shows a big difference in the texture. It's loaded with fish-like scales, similar to Spider-Man, which is sure to pop-out at people once the film is released in HD formats, and most likely 3D. But look a little bit closer at the costume, specifically at the testes-satchel area. No, I'm not admiring Cavill's bulge, but you can make out that the red underwear is gone. The producers of the film, one of which is my cinema king Christopher Nolan, said they were going to make the costume a little more solid and unique by taking out the red-over underwear. A minor gripe for devoted fanboys, but maybe it's for the better. It just makes the character look too cartoonish.

God my undies are sexy

My first impression of the picture was a little jarring. I guess I've been itching for a great Superman live-action movie since part II way back in the 80's, but I'm growing to like it. I love the primal look in Cavill's posture and pose. If you remember the first pic released back for Superman Returns, it showed Brandon Routh in the more usual iconic pose, resting his arms on his waist; very stoic. But now Warner Brothers is throwing a curve-ball. "Superman looks like he's in a Wolverine pose?" "Nooooooo!?!?" Relax everyone, this is what we need.

For too long Superman has been behaving very Dog Whisperer-like: calm and submissive. The man is faster than a speeding bullet, can punch through steel walls, and can take a beating. Go back and watch Superman Returns, and count the amount of punches he threw on-screen. That's right ... there were zero. Now, go watch any of the animated films of Superman and you'll notice the big difference in his portrayal. Fist-fly faster than E. Honda from Street Fighter, and he's always getting thrown around by baddies like Metallo, Darkseid, and even a robot-riding Lex Luthor; who I'm ecstatic is NOT making an appearance in this upcoming film. It finally seems like we're going to get a brutal take on the man who represents truth, justice, and the American way. That's not to say we won't get our typical portrayal of the Man of Steel. Cavill is after all British, which if James Bond taught us anything, means he must have some kind of charm about him. And how can you deny that beautifully stone-chiseled jaw-line? 


It looks like Snyder and company are on the right track so far. The only thing that sucks is that we'll have to wait until Summer 2013 to watch it.

Moving on now to the other 500 lb. gorilla in the DC room: Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is easily the more anticipated of the two films, considering it's already established itself as a worthy film franchise. New pics rose from the narrows of Gotham City last week, showing Tom Hardy in his full Bane costume. Don't let this pic BREAK YOU...

A lot of people, including myself, were a bit baffled when it was announced Bane was the main villain in the film. But once it sank in that Tom Hardy was playing the intellectually muscled threat...I was at ease. It looks to me that Nolan has again found a way to stay grounded in his realistic take on the comics. Hardy definitely beefed up for the role, but he's not the massive, luchador-mask-wearing wrecking ball we're accustomed to. Instead, he's got a fur jacket, a bullet-proof (maybe batarang-proof?) vest, with his combat pants topped off with that S&M mask, which is likely the source of his Venom serum. 

It just seems too coincidental

Other than his mask, there's nothing that really stands out with Bane's costume, but this is a good thing. Once you get too flashy with a villain's costume it distracts the audience from the performance of the actor. Hardy is a great actor. I know it's cliche, but he was meant for this role. Don't believe me? March your nerdy butt to your nearest NETFLIX instant queue and devote an hour and a half of your time to watch "Bronson." Hardy plays Britain's most notorious prisoner Charlie Bronson with a meticulous portrayal that pushes the limits of the character to insanity. Bronson was a bald-headed, handlebar mustachioed bulky prisoner, who loved to cause trouble for prison guards by holding them hostage, psychologically torturing them, and then buttering his naked body up so that when he'd fight them, he'd be harder to get under control. Sounds a bit like Bane right? Except for the whole mustache, naked butter thing. Whatever, you get the point.


Hardy is going to own this role. He's a fearless actor, who's not afraid to step up to the plate and deliver a notoriously villainous role in the Nolan inspired Batman universe. He's spoken on countless occasions of his displeasure of Schumacher's version of Bane in "Batman and Robin," who served merely as a henchmen who loved to mutter the word "BOOOOMMMMBBBB." He also admitted to sharing a great deal of respect to Heath Ledger's take on the Joker, but says he's not daunted by the task of following the performance, saying "Brilliant actor, brilliant work – that's it. I've got a job to do. ... It's the same with Mad Max and Mel Gibson. I'm not here to engage in a competition with their talent. It's to play the character that I've been given."(Little asterisk here, Hardy is playing the title role in the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road)

Heath Ledger raised the bar when it comes to memoriable villain portrayals; now, Tom Hardy is ready to power clean it over his head, and hopefully break its sorry ass back. July 20th, 2012 is indeed much too far away.

I'm watching you July 20th, 2012 -- Watch your back (cue drum snare)

    

Riddle Me NOT Batfans

The Dark Knight Rises

SWEAR TO ME!!!!!

In case you Bat-fans haven't heard already, there's some interesting news that hit the airwaves this week concerning the third installment of the beloved Bat franchise helmed by Chris Nolan. The bat-tacular director announced the title of his third Batman film, will be aptly called "The Dark Knight Rises." I'll get into my thoughts on the new title in a second, but the biggest news, and most surprising to many speculators out there, is that Nolan himself handed a little golden ticket by saying that the Riddler will NOT be the villain of the new film. Hmm, do I hear an uproar of green suited fanboys ready to overthrow Nolan for cerebral control of Gotham? I hope not...here's why.

If Nolan has taught us anything with his Bat-films, is to never expect the obvious. Over the course of the first two Bat-films, Nolan has redefined the comic book film genre each and every time. With Batman Begins, he taught us that even the most obscure villains can be taken seriously, and with the Dark Knight, well, Nolan showed us that an iconic villain can be made even more menacing than before, but that's due to the excellent casting choice of Heath Ledger. So how will Nolan up the ante from the Joker's reign of chaos? In all honesty, the Riddler wouldn't have been the answer. I've always been hesitant about the idea of Edward Nygma tearing Gotham apart with his narcissistic ways because Nygma was never a physical match for Batman, or cerebral one at that. On top of that, the only way I could see Riddler working in Nolan's universe is if he held Gotham ransom where only Batman could save the city by deciphering an all-too complex puzzle. We already saw something like this in the Dark Knight with the ferry-bomb scene, and it would be too similar in format. Plus Jim Carrey may have left a bad taste in all our mouths after that spectacularly awful performance in Batman Forever. I may have loved it as a kid, but I also loved Power Rangers...you do the math of my incompetence.

So here's where the crazy speculation begins of which villain will appear in the next Bat film. In order to calm the tidal wave of theories, I figured in honor of the world's greatest detectives, I'd do some detective work of my own in zeroing in on just who will go toe-to-toe with the Dark Knight. So here are the clues we have so far....

Clue #1 The Title of the Film

"The Dark Knight Rises" -- A title like this should evoke the greatest emotions out of comic book fans. When we last saw our Dark Knight in shining military flex-armor, he was branded a criminal in Gotham. Now the entire Gotham police force is after Batman, and the whole city probably hates his guts. With a title like the Dark Knight Rises, Batman must be beat down to a pulp and rise out of the ashes as the savior of Gotham, meaning it is not going to be a walk in the park. He must be thrown into the proverbial societal blender, mixing it up with the dregs of society, and becoming his own one man army against Gotham's underworld.

Clue #2 Casting Tom Hardy

The Forger from Inception was hand picked by Nolan to play an unspecified villain role in the upcoming film. If anyone saw Hardy's earlier performances that weren't Inception, such as Layer Cake, and even Star Trek: Nemesis, you'll clearly see a talented Brit with a knack for playing dark characters. Hardy has many qualities to his advantage as a villain: He is young, not a chick (sorry Poison Ivy & Harley Quinn), not fat (sorry Penguin), and not a skinny wimp (sorry Ventriloquist). I could be wrong and he does end up playing one of the characters above (I hope he's not a cross dressing Ivy) but because of this we can probably narrow down the list of possible villainous candidates.

Clue #3 Nolan's Believable World of Batman

Sounds like a good theme park name. Seriously though, the world of Gotham City that Nolan has created is something to treasure. Gotham City is a crime-ridden, dark, gritty world that looks like Chicago. I kid, I kid, it IS Chicago. The world of Gotham isn't what we were used to seeing in Burton-Schumacher land. No more are our villains characatures that would make even their animated series counterparts weep in dismay. No, these are villains that could be considered believable by today's degenerate standards. They are methodical, twisted, and anarchists by nature. So with that being said, you can rule out a couple villains just by this clue alone. While Riddler could've been translated successfully, Nolan hammered the final nail in the coffin with his latest announcement. (Which I called by the way...Don't believe me...check out my earlier blogs ya doubters)

Clue #4 Other Sources

Batman in the Bayou?

I added this clue because I overheard through the reliable friend of a friend scenario that some of the production on The Dark Knight Rises is scheduled to film in New Orleans. At his point everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but it does peak my interest. Why? Well, one of the more notorious villains in the Bat-Universe who has some deep comic book connections with the bayou city is none other than Killer Croc aka Waylon Jones. I know, I know, the inclusion of Killer Croc is hard to imagine within the confines of Nolan's realistic Bat-universe, but still, you gotta admit it would be an unexpected, yet welcome curve ball if that's who our villain turns out to be.

Hypothesis of Possible Villains

So with the clues that we have, we can start to pinpoint closer to who our villain could be, and here are my guesses beginning with the most likely:

Hush

If it were up to me, Hush would be the perfect villain for this movie. 'The Dark Knight Rises' will be a film about the struggle Batman will go through in order to win back the people of Gotham. In order to portray this film in the grandest of fashions, Nolan will need to introduce a villain that knows every move Batman will make, and that's where Hush comes in. Hush, aka Thomas Elliot, was a childhood friend of Bruce Wayne who grew up under similar circumstances with wealthy parents. However in Elliot's case, he hated his parents, and was jealous of Bruce. Nolan and crew could play with this relationship in a number of ways on screen, which could allow for furthur character development for Bruce Wayne. Elliot is also a master strategist, and according to the comics, he's known to have been an equal to Batman in both physical and mental prowess, and is a superb marksman. One of Hush's story arcs even had him manipulating some of Gotham's most vile criminals for his own purpose of ridding Batman, including Riddler, Joker, and even Killer Croc (wink wink). Plus Tom Hardy has the same charming looks as Christian Bale, and can easily be identified by audiences as the anti-Bruce Wayne.

Black Mask

Black Mask could be a major possibility within the context of Nolan's universe. Roman Sionis was another rich kid but his story is sadder than Hush. He was hated by his parents and he was bad from the get-go. A failed businessman, Sionis later turns to a life of crime, becoming a mob leader of the "False Face Society," where every member must wear a mask of their choosing, and he subsequently becomes the Black Mask after an incident with Batman, where his face was melted onto his Black mask...duh. I can see Black Mask in a Nolan film, especially with Hardy's casting, however the only problem I see with this is the whole mob connection. It's been done already in the first two films with Falcone and Joker, and I don't really see a chance for Nolan to add onto the emotional development of Wayne.

Ra's Al Ghul/Talia Al Ghul

If Liam Neeson makes a surprise appearance, I will officially s**t myself. If anyone analyzed the ending of 'Batman Begins' the way I did, you'll notice how Ra's peacefully closed his eyes before the train derailed, as if to say, "this will be merely a flesh wound!" Ra's al Ghul is immortal in the comics due to the mystical powers of the Lazarus pits. If Nolan wanted to up the ante of this film he could bring Neeson back, and maybe introduce Ra's daughter, Talia al Ghul as the new love interest because remember, Rachel went boom-boom in The Dark Knight. It would be nice, but that leaves the casting of Tom Hardy a mystery, unless he of course plays someone else we don't expect.

Killer Croc

As cool as Croc is in Batman lore, I am only including him based on clue # 4. It would be really difficult to include a character like this, mostly because it would either require an unbelievable amount of prosthetics or CGI to create, and I know Nolan won't be too keen on that. Plus, it doesn't really fit well in the believable realm of Nolan but hey, you never know.

=============

So those are my 2 cents on the possible direction of the new Batman film. I am thrilled that production is finally taking off with this film after a two and half year wait since the release of The Dark Knight. As great as Joker was, he should be left out entirely in the new film due to the tragic passing of Heath Ledger, and if anything, only be mentioned in an off manner. Maybe something like "Holy Shit, Joker escaped Arkham. We'll never find him." Maybe not exactly word for word how I put it, but you get the idea. Whatever the case may be, we're still a year and a half away until the Summer 2012 release date of The Dark Knight Rises, and anything could happen between now and then. Still, all the elements are starting to come together, and I know Nolan will make this a worthy third entry into a mainstream series. I wish I could say the same thing for Spider Man 3. I was seriously going into cardiac arrest when I saw Peter Parker dancing down the sidewalk. Hopefully Alfred won't bust out with a konga line.

No One Puts Nolan in a Corner

Warner Brothers Pushing for Batman 3-D

Wanna Know how I got these scars? Because of misuse of 3D that's how.

Some new reports are circulating that Warner Brothers Studios is pegging acclaimed director Christopher Nolan to film his next Batman film in 3D. Given the obvious success of Avatar, Warner Brothers hopes to put the best of a great narrative, cohesive action sequences, and 3D technology into one bundle of a batarang film in Batman 3D. According to several reports, Warner Brothers says it is also planning on converting Nolan's latest masterpiece "Inception" into 3D, in a joint deal with a new on demand 3D channel HBO is planning to release next year. Although Nolan has flirted with the idea of filming in 3D, the Batman helmer admits that he doesn't think the timing is right, and I ride the "in Nolan we trust" bandwagon.

My problems with 3D films are plenty. For starters, many films hoping to duplicate the success of Avatar are adding the 3D label as a gimmick. (See 'The Last Airbender' if you don't believe me) Films like 'Clash of the Titans' and 'Alice in Wonderland' used a post production conversion process to create their 3D effects, and the end result was a sloppy mess of fake depth. In both of these films, I never felt like I could 'Last Action Hero' my way into the movie like I felt with Avatar. The best way I could compare it was like the first time I read a pop-up book, it was fun for a while, but you eventually put it away in your repressed childhood memories. I think in order to make a successful 3D film, you need to have the right technology, the right direction and camera work, and the proper post production time to add the finishing touches. Case in point, Avatar did all of these things. It took something like 4 years just for the actual filming process. 

IMAX at its finest...3D not necessary

So what's Nolan's take on 3D? Straight from the man's mouth, Nolan spoke at a press conference in the UK before the release of Inception saying "3D is something we’re looking at, but I see at the moment significant technical limitations to the presentation format, mostly with the dimness of the image and the fact that you have to wear the glasses. The post-conversion process can be done very effectively, actually - we did tests for this film, but decided we didn’t have enough time to get it to the standard that we wanted." So besides some of the technical jargon involving color and lighting effects on film, Nolan believes that 3D CAN be done with the right technology and production time. I think the idea of an on demand HBO 3D service is great idea that will pave the way for 3D TV's in the future. However in the case of Batman 3D, Warner Brothers is hoping to release the film by summer 2012, and the film is only in the early script stages...Meaning no time for love Dr. Jones!

Unless Warner Brothers intends to rush the 3D conversion process, then Batman 3D will be laughable. As is the case with all these 3D wannabe movies, the studios are looking to make money. But you don't have to tack on a lame 3D conversion process to reel in the big bucks. The Dark Knight was able to haul in more than $1 billion because of many reasons, but most significantly was the use of IMAX. Many scenes in The Dark Knight were shot in IMAX very effectively. Nolan used at least 4 IMAX cameras to film The Dark Knight, and had to re-invent the wheel when it came to filming many of the action sequences. The same was said when James Cameron filmed Avatar. If you want to create a successful product, you need to go the extra mile when creating your films. The Joker chase scene in The Dark Knight re-imagined the way IMAX can be used in films, just like how Avatar changed the way 3D technology can be used in films. I'm not against 3D movies, I just don't want a half-assed product that'll ruin such a beloved franchise similar to what Spider-Man 3 did. Otherwise, Warner Brothers will have to listen to fanboys screaming their lungs out as to "Why do we fall down?" And besides, all this talk of Batman 3D is premature. How about Warner Brothers and Nolan figure out who's going to be their next villain already.

New Batman Arkham Asylum Deets and my gripe with Co-op

So I know it's been a while since the news broke, but the good ol boys over at Rocksteady studios are finally letting the cat out of the "bat" when it comes to it's sequel to the 2009 hit game "Batman Arkham Asylum." If any of you have ever loved Batman, heck, even comic books in general, then you'll understand why this game is important to the nerd landscape.

Anyway, down to the juicy deets. Apparantly, the game is now stretching its wings out of Arkham Island and into Gotham City...but not entirely. It seems the overzealous Warden Sharp has decided to set up a makeshift prison inside Gotham, which may open up some possibilities in terms of how we can explore the area. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop anyone?

Besides the location, Rocksteady is promising to include additional villains in the game, which shouldn't be too hard given the fact that the Batman universe has arguably the finest villain line-up in comic book lore. Finally, I can batarang Mr. Freeze till his balls drop. However one interesting thing to point out is that on the latest issue of Game Informer, which is the source of all this bat-tastic news, is the spotlight on Catwoman, which is leaving many to speculate the inclusion of co-op in the game.

Here's my problem. What makes Batman great as a video game is the fact he operates mainly as a lone vigilante. Sure he joins up with Robin, Nightwing, and anyone else I don't care to think about, but we all love the concept of one man kicking everyone's ass. Adding Catwoman to the single player game is just a gimmick. Case in point, look at the biggest violator...Resident Evil 5. The RE series is all about tension and fear, and when you add another person into the equation it kills that sense of being alone and fending for yourself against hordes of zombies (which need to make a comeback by the way). Same goes for Batman. Developers need to get to the essence of what their story and protagonist are all about and determine what's the best route to take when including new gameplay types.

I'm not saying co-op is bad, but give me the experience as a standalone piece if it doesn't fit into the context of the story. The best way to do this is to do what the Splinter Cell series has done. That series gave us a satisfying single player campaign, and then added an entirely new mechanic that takes advantage of having another buddy...not to mention making a unique story to go along with it. 

Anyway, I'll be drooling for this game until its release date next fall. Until then, here's some more info on The Dark Knight's next digital adventure:  http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/111/1111550p1.html