Yeah. And we know how some people here feel towards "change."
STAGNATION FOR THE WIN!!!!
Legitimately asking, would you have been okay for a Batman movie with Aronofsky and Miller's changes ?
Maybe our own perception of how superhero movies needs to change, I can deal with that, but at the same time, why not make your own new superhero if you're changing that much ?
I'm with you. We wouldn't have Star Wars, Darkman or RoboCop if directors hadn't had to invent their own stuff because of copyrights!
I would have been okay with Aronofsky's Year One... as a comic book. No one would be as mad as to produce that elsewords into a marketed movie.
That's why Miller should stick to comic books: they're fairly less expensive to produce, and they don't get as much media exposure if they're garbage. He's been allowed way too much because of his name.
And knowing DC, we'll have Raja Gosnell directing the next Batman.
Knowing DC, they realize that batman is more marketable now than ever. Why the hell would they take a chance on a stupid-ass director like that?
Look at all the directors they've picked for their movies. Hell even Bryan Singer had a very public success with X-Men one and two.
these are not tiny names people.
Even looking back. Joel Schumacher's LARGEST fuck up WAS the batman movies.
This guy did a film adaption of Phantom of the Opera and some other damn decent flicks.
DC isn't cheap with director's. They just have no fucking clue who to put where.
I say they got lucky with Snyder and Nolan.
But if you think they're going to turn over their biggest moneymaker to the director of Scooby Doo...
I think you better just... rethink that thought.