The web is suddenly inundated with news and rumors about Spider-Man 4 as Sony suddenly starts talking about the web-spinner again. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be because another hugely popular comic book franchise has already eaten almost every box office record for breakfast and just keeps going back for more helpings? The Dark Knight has only been in the theater for just under three weeks and according to Entertainment Weekly, it’s hit the $300 million mark faster than any film in history and is almost sure to beat Titanic’s all-time record. Of course, Spider-Man used to be the talk of the town– the first in the trilogy held the record for largest opening weekend gross, and each film has beaten the previous by leaps and bounds.

But Sony’s only got one problem with their logic– the reason each Spider-Man film has done better than the last is because of the success of the one before it. Spider-Man 3 did so well because Spider-Man 2 was so good; for a long time it was even christened by a lot of critics the best super hero film of all time (though that title was just snagged three weeks ago– Dark Knight is still at 94% on Rotten Tomatoes’ tomatometer). Spider-Man 3 may have grossed well at the Box Office, but it’s received a lot of bad press since then and most fans agree that the franchise lost its magic when it tried to make too many different kinds of people happy instead of making the crisp, solid picture Spider-Man 2 was. In short, most of us are a little tired of Spidey on the big screen by this point. I doubt a fourth film would flop, but it’s certainly not going to make as many people rich.

So what about a spin-off? Wha-huh? you timidly ask. Yep, they’re also seriously talking Venom now. Maybe they should have thought about that before they KILLED HIM OFF at the end of Spider-Man 3.

Sony wants to pull an X-Men Origins: Wolverine and spin off the ever popular Venom into his own picture. Naturally, everyone’s concerned. Some are worried that it’ll be a different character than Eddie Brock (which would be a big, big mistake, since that’s who all the fans know and love– please don’t do to Venom what they did to Catwoman…). Others are wondering who will play him and whether or not Topher Grace can head a whole movie all by himself. Personally, I think Venom and his origins were handled with such disrespect in Spider-Man 3 that Sony should be thinking less X-Men Origins: Wolverine and more The Incredible Hulk. His story and Brock’s character were over-simplified and he appears an hour into the movie like an after-thought, after all the “important” has been introduced, which barely includes him. He looks absolutely fantastic but gets so little screen time that it hardly matters.  Venom needs a complete reboot. I don’t really want a Venom completely without Spider-Man, but I also don’t want some contrived plot device to save Brock, because there’s no way he survives what happens to him at the end of the last movie, and no one can tell me a spin-off was ever planned way back then.

The biggest concern is one I’m not sure I get: can a villain be the protagonist for a whole film? Even Todd McFarlane (who created Venom, in case you weren’t aware) has suggested this is a problem.  First, if you can have a movie like The Punisher (which I absolutely hated, but a lot of people didn’t), who is a brutal killing machine who kills for vengeance, you can do a Venom movie. There are certainly ways to make misguided characters sympathetic. Venom has never been just pure evil– that’s what Carnage is for. He was called the “Lethal Protector” in a lot of the 90s comics, and there was even a mini-series entitled that. I think the concept of a Venom who hates Spider-Man but simultaneously brutally kills in order to protect innocents may have been well after McFarlane left Marvel to start Image Comics, but it’s certainly the way he was for a lot of years. I always thought Venom was interesting because he judged everyone by his own standards, and if he thought someone was harming whomever he deemed “innocent,” they were dead. This isn’t a mustache-twirling villain– this is a guy who really thinks he’s doing the right thing and that every good person should be doing what he’s doing. So even though he’s certainly more of a villain than a hero, I say that makes him sympathetic enough for his own film.

The only question now is, can a Venom movie make money after Spider-Man 3 left a lot of fans cold? I say yes, but only if the trailers make it absolutely obvious that A) it’s Eddie Brock and B) this is much deeper, much more meaningful, and with a much more character-driven story than the last Spider-Man film.

After all, that’s why Dark Knight suddenly has critics taking the medium of comic-book movies seriously.

LLAP

-Cap’n Logan

Vince’s Take 

If Batman: The Long Halloween and The Killing Joke had a baby it would be Dark Knight.  Having read both graphic novels I can say it definitely takes after its father; assuming that the father is The Long Halloween.  To my understanding The Killing Joke was supposed to be a major inspiration for the film.  That may be true, but it does show in the plot.

Hands down my favorite part of this movie is the heavy involvement of Harvey Dent.  Not only is Dent a joy to watch, but his involvement in The Long Halloween is heavily drawn upon for the events of the movie while not ruining the events of the thirteen issue comic book.  Good job, writers.  That’s impressive.  Upon hearing of Aaron Eckhart’s involvement I was immediately excited, and having him as a major character in the movie couldn’t have been more satisfying.  Eckhart is every bit as strong of a hero (at least partly *wink wink*) as Bale and Oldman, and is a welcome addition to the team.

Good ‘ol Batsie doesn’t disappoint.  Christian Bale brings the same intensity that we saw in Batman Begins.  I don’t have much to say about his performance because I’ve pretty much accepted that Christian Bale really is Batman.  The emotional pulls in this movie are too great to confirmedly label one character as the heart in the movie, but, in my opinion, it’s Lt. Gordon.  Tragedy and heroism exists win Gordon as a special variety distinct from Gotham’s White Knight and Dark Knight.

As for the Joker, I thought there was only a few moments where the characterization seemed watered down, but that can easily be explained away.  Ledger is chilling and hilarious as the Clown Prince of Crime.  I had my worries that the Joker was going to be too dark to be in keeping with what the Joker was supposed to be: a madman with a demented sense of humor that the audience will judge themselves a little for laughing with.  I must say, I worried for nothing.  They delivered and then some.  Particularly in the laugh, I think there’s even a slight reminiscence of Nicholson’s Joker while allowing Nolan and Ledger to make it their own.

I felt the movie had a little too much action in it.  I found myself asking, “How much can the Joker actually plan in advance?”  I assume his recourses are the same as that of the various crime bosses in town, but still his terrorist acts happen with such frequency I question the feasibility of the events within the time period given versus the Joker’s ability to create those plans and execute them as intended.  And there’s my only major complaint.  I loved this movie, guys.  Do not miss it for your own sake.

Cap’n Logan’s Take

Comic book films are far too often worrying about their audience’s attention spans. They need to knock this off. The difference between Dark Knight and most “seroius” comic book movies is about a half hour. That’s the time that makes the difference between being just an action thriller and a real mind-bender. Dark Knight takes its time– it’s two and a half hours long– and gets to be both.

I can’t think of another comic book movie that has so much story. I haven’t seen a lot of recent movies period whose plot gets nearly this complex. I don’ know anything about the novelization, but it could very easily be written between three and four hundred pages. Despite that many of these are characters we know from the first film and that there are certain things that simply must be done when dealing with the Joker and Two-Face, it’s not predictable. Spider-Man had two and a half villains (yes, I’m counting New Goblin as the half villain) and it couldn’t juggle all of its characters. Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face are well developed, each have full and logically interconnecting stories, and Bruce Wayne/Batman, Alfred, Lucius Fox, Gordon, and Rachel are still three dimensional characters who grow, change, and matter. As Vince hinted at, this is a film not just about the Joker, as Tim Burton’s film was, and isn’t just about Batman, as Begins very appropriately was– it’s as much about Gordon as it is about anything. We care about him, we applaud for him, and we cry for him. Boy, do we cry for him.

The Dark Knight is an apt title– Nolan couldn’t make a darker film. There are points where the film is almost so depressing it’s no longer entertaining… but that’s only because we have so much invested in these characters, and that’s amazing in one film, since many of those are people we didn’t get to know last time. We don’t want Harvey to become Two-Face. We don’t want Batman to have to make the tough decisions that almost break him.

And the best part– Joker orchestrates all of it. If it weren’t for the incredible complexity of turning Harvey Dent from the most decent man in Gotham, the man who has single-handedly changed things as much as Batman, I’d say Joker didn’t get enough screen time, because he’s so interesting. He’s not interested in money or fame– he just wants to make a point: you can bring the most decent person in the world down in the most unspeakably evil way, and you can do it for very little coin. This is a Joker with actual principles. They’re twisted, but they’re principles, and though he’s a killer and a lier, he never goes against those principles. And the best thing about him is that we never know exactly how he got to be how he is because he keeps telling conflicting back stories about himself. He’s as complex as Batman, very much his opposite, and though he’s a mystery, he’s multi-layered and we can tell that if we knew what really happened to him, we’d probably feel a little sorry for him.

Problems? I’m the only person on the Internet who’s probably saying this, but I liked Katie Holmes and I missed her. Rachel looked a lot older and I kept having to remind myself it was the same character. Not a problem with the writing, but this was not the continuity to change an actress with such a pivotal role. I would have liked more original scoring– I expected themes from Begins to come up, but I had hoped at least Joker woud get his own melody. I didn’t like that the one trade-off for Batman’s new costume was that it would be more vulnerable to gun fire and knife wounds. It seemed like a plot contrivance so Joker would be more of a match for him. And I really would have liked Wayne and Dent to have already been friends before the film began, because, while the film did develop that aspect enough for us to buy it when Dent is destroyed and then corrupted, it could have been that much more bittersweet for Batman.

And the saddest thing of all is after layers upon layers of real substance, as the movie proves, even more than Iron Man, the real validity a comic book film can have (a point made by Roger Ebert), after Batman and the Joker build that real comic book rivalry, and after Joker gets the incredible line, “You and I are destined to do this forever…” we’ll never get to see him again.