The Middle of the Dark

Newsarama offers a really good op-ed on why the next Batman film could - should be - called The Dark Knight Returns, and also why the Joker should come back. And be recast. Check it out. I think it may have persuaded me from my position that recasting the character would be difficult in the least. I don't know, however, that a literal translation of Frank Miller's Batman into Nolan's is possible or even feasible; that said, the article is good food for thought. I've always thought Batman's story has to end. His success prevents it of course. Even if Nolan completes his trilogy, which is what we seem to be in for, Warner Brothers will want and rightfully so as many films as they can get. And they should make Batman films to their hearts content. This article suggests a great idea: allowing myriad artists take their own whacks at the character, in various films. Batman has proven his elasticity. But since we're talking about the first true, complete - p

He's George W. Bush. Apparently. Andrew Kalvaan departs from his rocker in the Wall St. Journal in a suprisingly deluded way and I just have to put my two cents in. The Dark Knight does not have a pro-Bush or pro-neo conservative stance. If you think it concerns the war on terror, and that is a legitimate argument, and if you think Batman=Bush, which is not legit, then here's why you cannot walk away from this film thinking it somehow legitimizes the last 7 years: Batman fails to take the Joker seriously until it is too late. Batman fails to kill the Joker when given the opportunity, and the justification to do so. Batman 'extradites' a non-national from a foreign country where he has no jurisdiction. Batman abuses his power and technology to spy on his own people. Batman's actions only embolden his enemy. You can find a correlative for everyone of those items in the last 7 years, and none of them are positive, and none of them presented that way in the film. T