comment #1

BurmaShave says ...

Why'd they do this twice?

comment #2

George Prager says ...

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FUCKING NEGATIVE-NANCY NAYSAYERS.

Get ready, bitches, cuz this isn't going to be pretty.

And my IRONY MODE is set to MOTHERFUCKING OFF, because this one is for real.

ED NORTON is my IDOL.

Has been for 10 years. Dude is the GREATEST MOVIE STAR of the last 25 years, a LEGEND on par with Grant, Gable, THE DUKE, CLINT, you name it.

BOW BEFORE NORTON. BOW!!!!!!

[snip]

What have any of us accomplished? Eating a bowl of fucking cereal? Doing some niche bullshit? This is a MOVIE STAR who has BROUGHT THE WORLD TOGETHER, and you're all sounding off alarms like a June release date is some walk of shame level disgrace.

FUCK THAT.

The man is the GREATEST MOVIE STAR of our age. The man's HAIR is INCREDIBLE and if you don't seek to style your WACK-ASS COIF after ED NORTON in your day to day life, you are the lesser man for it.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK WILL OWN YOUR ASS. EVERYTHING NORTON EVER HAS DONE AND EVER WILL DONE, with the exceptions of maybe THE SCORE, KEEPING THE FAITH, and DEATH TO SMOOCHY, are LIFE-CHANGING PAENS (sic) TO THE POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING.

RECOGNIZE.

comment #3

lesterg says ...

The man is also on the verge of being borderline-unemployable (by the majors, at least) with his prima donna horseshit.

If Norton bails on publicity for Hulk, he is going to be fucked for a good, long time.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

Ed Norton's hair does not compare to the impeccable hair of Ted Bessell

comment #5

Admiral82 says ...

I still have an open sore from the Ang Lee film. I'll never let that motherfucker close up....

Its a testament to my disdain.

comment #6

p.Vice says ...

Somehow this article fails to mention that they are doing-over an Oscar-winning director's film with the hired-gun responsible for... Transporter 1 & 2. Brilliant!!!!

This might be the only film coming down the pike that looks worse than Valkyrie.

comment #7

Mgmax says ...

Oh darn, and I had such hopes for Hulk 2: Bigger, Greener, Less Arty.

comment #8

MDOC says ...

As a comic book movie guy, I am pulling for the Hulk. But I was dissapointed when I saw the trailer. He doesn't look good enough.
Ang Lee's Hulk was a mess. I don't understand people that defend it. Whoever made the creative decision to have one of the set pieces be the Hulk fighting hulked out poodles should be banished from tent pole filmmaking.

comment #9

wayne76 says ...

If anyone is in need of learning the value of picking one's battles, it's Edward Norton.

comment #10

Howlingman says ...

Is Marvel that desperate for a new franchise that they greenlight two sequels (Punisher 2 being the other) to films nobody liked or saw in the first place? Does this mean Daredevil 2 and Elektra 2 are in the planning stages? Maybe they'll keep churning this crap out until we finally capitulate and just hand them our money if they promise to stop.

comment #11

BurmaShave says ...

Prager isn't a LexG impersonation a little bit obscure, even for you?

comment #12

DavidF says ...

As a Torontonian I can't help but look at that still and be distracted by The Big Slice. The trailer also has a zillion shots of Zanzibar, a big Toronto strip club. Yonge Street ain't Harlem.

I think p.Vice misses the point that maybe The Incredible Hulk doesn't NEED the Oscar-winning director of Brokeback Mountain. Maaaaaybe that was the entire problem with the first film. Maybe some guy who knows how to make stuff blow up in a cool way will help.

Would you rather see Tim Burton's Batman or Kevin Costner's Batman? Only one has an Oscar...

Pedigrees need not apply here. nuff said.

comment #13

MDOC says ...

Howlingman, comics work the same way. When sales decrease, they bring in a new creative team. There are people, I'm one of them sue me, that want to see these characters on screen. Just because a Jonathan Hensleigh or Mark Steven Johnson fails to translate a character to the screen doesn't mean they can't be marketable and compelling. The conclusion to Henleighs Punisher grosses shouldn't be "audiences don't want to see the Punisher" it should be audiences don't want to see the Punisher in Tampa Bay fighting Danny Zuko. But your right about one thing, you only get so many second chances before revulsion sets in.

comment #14

Bilge says ...

Does the Times do ANY fact-checking anymore? To wit:

"The monster was mute in Mr. Lee’s film, but this one speaks, a nod to the campy 1978-82 television series that starred Bill Bixby and the bodybuilder Lou Ferrigno (resplendent in green body paint)."

Am I missing something here? Ferrigno's Hulk didn't speak. It was the comic book Hulk that spoke, no?

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

I'm pretty sure you're right, Bilge. The only thing I remember out of Ferrigno's Hulk was a clearly-looped growl. It didn't even look approximately like it was coming from his mouth.

The original Kirby/Lee Hulk got downright eloquent in some of the early issues. But Hulk was always best when he talked like the Monster in Bride of Frankenstein.

comment #16

rockne says ...

Hey, Mr. Prager...
Your post is awful close to a comment someone left on David Poland's site talking about Valkyrie and Tom Cruise. The SAME THINGS you said about Ed Norton are the SAME THINGS someone said about Tom Cruise.
Was it you writing both? And if it was...you feel the same about both actors? Or is there some template you use (or swiped) to stick up for these actors?
Plagiarism is pretty pathetic.

comment #17

Walter Sobchak says ...

Like the earlier one, it looks like a lame CG cartoon jerk-fest.

comment #18

rockne says ...

Here's the comment, direct from Poland's site: (Profanity removed)

POLAND'S STORY "About the Valkyrie"

COMMENT BELOW:

"I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU FUCKING NEGATIVE-NANCY NAYSAYERS.

Get ready, bitches, cuz this isn't going to be pretty.

And my IRONY MODE is set to MOTHERF*****G OFF, because this one is for real.

TOM CRUISE is my IDOL.

Has been for 20 years. Dude is the GREATEST MOVIE STAR of the last 25 years, a LEGEND on par with Grant, Gable, THE DUKE, CLINT, you name it.

BOW BEFORE CRUISE. BOW!!!!!!

HMM, let's see, here's some DIRECTORS who've worked with Cruise:

COPPOLA
SCORSESE
KUBRICK
SPIELBERG
RIDLEY SCOTT
TONY SCOTT
MICHAEL MANN
CURTIS HANSON
OLIVER STONE
NEIL JORDAN
CAMERON CROWE
BRIAN DEPALMA
JOHN WOO
PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON
SYDNEY POLLACK

You think those guys suffer fools? You think those guys aren't in total fucking command of their medium or don't know EXACTLY what they want? Hmm, and they've all worked with THE GREATEST MOVIE STAR OF OUR AGE. And up until two or three years ago, most of you would have agreed.

But all because someone PRACTICED THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, their FREEDOM OF RELIGION, someone DARED to be EXPRESSIVE and maybe a little giddy or dorky about falling in love, suddenly you're all talking like the man's ready for fucking TV or DTV movies?????

How many BILLIONS of fucking dollars did this man make for this industry? How many MASTERPIECE f*****g movies? How much f******g JOY did he bring to the MASSES AROUND THE GLOBE WITH HIS ACTING?

What have any of us accomplished? Eating a bowl of f******g cereal? Doing some niche bullshit? This is a MOVIE STAR who has BROUGHT THE WORLD TOGETHER, and you're all sounding off alarms like a February release date is some walk of shame level disgrace.

F**K THAT.

The man is the GREATEST MOVIE STAR of our age. The man's HAIR is INCREDIBLE and if you don't seek to style your WACK-ASS COIF after TOM CRUISE in your day to day life, you are the lesser man for it.

CRUISE IS KING. ALL HAIL. And Singer's no fucking slouch. That trailer looked AWESOME. Gee, real sorry a bunch of gossip-mongering, pissy, petty-ass BITCHES have to snipe at a MOVIE STAR WHO'S SUPERIOR TO THEM ON EVERY LEVEL OF SUCCESS IN THE WORLD, taking cheap shots to gratify their own bullshit sense of insecurity and creating a story WHERE THERE IS NONE. (Not Poland specifically, just this tide of phony-ass backlash dating back to '05 on the subject of Cruise.)

How many of Cruise's DETRACTORS have worked with that list of directors? F**k, how many of CRUISE'S PEERS IN ACTING have worked with a comparable list of directors? The man is a GENIUS at seeking out material, seeking out GREAT DIRECTORS and GREAT COLLABORATORS.

But, BOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO, he has steadfast beliefs in his chosen form of religion.

And OOOOOH, he has the BALLS to SPEAK HIS MIND and point out that we're becoming a NATION OF BITCH-ASS ZOMBIES, popping pills and going to BULLSHIT THERAPISTS.

F**k ALL that. Man is INDIVIDUAL. Man is GOD of his own DESTINY. If you're legitimately disturbed, by all means, check into therapy or get on some medication. But 99.9% of the world is just F*****G DRAMA QUEENS looking to EXCUSE THEIR OWN MEDIOCRITY AND LACK OF VISION, so, hey, let's get HOPPED UP on a bunch of BULLSHIT MEDICATION and PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS designed to KEEP YOU COMPLACENT, KEEP YOU MEDIOCRE.

Don't get MEDIOCRE. Don't go to therapists if you're just a working schmo bitch-ass. BE SUPERIOR. BE A F*****G MAN. BE KING.

VALKYRIE WILL OWN YOUR ASS. EVERYTHING CRUISE EVER HAS DONE AND EVER WILL DONE, with the exceptions of maybe LOSIN' IT, FAR AND AWAY, and LAST SAMURAI, are LIFE-CHANGING PAENS TO THE POWER OF POSITIVE THINKING.

RECOGNIZE."

comment #19

Howlingman says ...

MDOC, I think you're mixing apples and oranges a little. Comics have a built-in audience -- movies not so much. What was the general audience's knowledge of The Punisher pre-2004? Hulk at least had the benefit of the iconic TV series carrying it forward. But these movies aren't going to succeed on the comic book audience's attendance alone. If a property failed to capture the imagination the first time around, what's the chance it'll succeed the second time, especially allowing for the fact the last 2 films came out less than 5 years ago?

comment #20

btwnproductions says ...

If George Prager is 150% behind HULK, the movie is sure to tank. Looks like Norton may have to go back to the theater to get some career mojo working again...I'll save an aisle seat for GP...

comment #21

Jay T. says ...

This thing never had a chance... why make this so soon after they already made a shitty/boring Hulk movie? Edward Norton is wasting his time...

comment #22

Wrecktum says ...

Want to kill a franchise? Hire Edward Norton.

comment #23

Mgmax says ...

I'm pretty sure George was parodying that post, Rockne. Unless it too was a parody, but I find it believable about Cruise. That someone has a sad enough life to think that way, I mean.

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

This thread just became too meta. And everytime I see that picture of Hulk I don't imagine him roaring, I imagine him howling like Wilson Pickett.

comment #25

Rich S. says ...

"Want to kill a franchise? Hire Edward Norton."

For some reason, that struck me as one of the funniest things I've read in awhile. I can see it now....

EDWARD NORTON IS.....

Captain Jack Sparrow
Harry Potter
Anakin Skywalker
Buzz Lightyear
and of course
Batman

comment #26

Howlingman says ...

"You play a good game, Mister ..."

"Norton. Edward Norton."

comment #27

lesterg says ...

"Norton may have to go back to the theater to get some career mojo working again"

Don't disagree. The man is already damaged goods after his tussles with Paramount. If he fucks Universal - he's toast in terms of studio work. No one is going to hire the guy that refused to promote a 150 million tent pole picture.

It will be back to theater, low-budget indies and possibly television for the foreseeable future.

comment #28

val says ...

Me personally, I did not think the trailer looked that awful. But it did not look that good either. I like Norton as an actor so that's a shame that he turn into such a primadonna.

comment #29

MDOC says ...

Howlingman,
I grant you that comics are a different medium where the show usually soldiers on regardless of quality of product. Some comics get cancelled. In cinema, the stakes are higher and franchises die because the investors lose confidence. It's my observation that the perception is that audiences reject a character when in reality they simply are rejecting a poor product. Batman & Robin bombed because it was garbage. Audiences looked at it and recoiled in disgust as everything that was intriguing about the chracters was stripped away by a creative team that didn't get it and/or failed to execute. Bring in a fresh new artist, boom Batman Begins grosses 200 million. There is a built in audience that wants to see these characters in entertaining movies. In the Punisher movie the Punisher got his famous skull costume from a t-shirt his son gave him before he was gunned down at an island retreat family reunion by minions of Tony Manero. As an audience member, I chose to insead see Kill Bill with my wife and another couple. The following week I went myself to Punisher during a matinee. A quality project will expand upon the built in base.

comment #30

actionman says ...

Lots of mixed feelings on this film and Ang Lee's version.

I definitely did not hate Ang Lee's movie, I just thought the ending sucked, and he probably took it a little too seriously overall. But, I do admire someone who wants to try something different, especially in a genre that tends to repeat itself. I've only seen the film once all the way through, which was opening weekend in the theater. Since then, I've watched, and quite enjoyed, the first 2/3'rds a few times. The way Lee transitioned from scene to scene is still the best comic-book gimmick in any of these superhero movies. There's also something really surreal about the scenes of the Hulk in the desert, and I like when he's stomping around the streets of San Francisco. And I liked Bana a lot.

This new one...it does look like a mess...and the CGI is very cheesey looking, especially the end sequence in the trailer of the two of them running at each other. They look tiny and weightless.

However, I do think that Louis Letterier might be an action director to watch out for in the future. When I walked out of Unleashed (which is very underrated; some great ass-kicking in that film) I said to myself, give this guy a $100 million plus budget and he'd probably deliver something spectacular. I think The Transporter films, for all of their mindless idiocy, are about as fun as PG-13 actioners can get.

So when I heard that he got the job on Incredible Hulk, I said to myself, that's pretty sweet. A European sensibility brought to a big budget American action flick. Now, after hearing about the shit-show that Norton seems to be pulling, it smells like another situation where Norton, an actor I really do love to watch on screen, bullied everyone around him to get whatever he wanted.

Or maybe not. Maybe it will be a lot of fun and deliver the goods. I am sure I will see it but I am not pumped up for its arrival.

comment #31

cust71 says ...

It surprised me when the Hulk was getting re-done so soon after the first one, surprised me even more when Norton said he was doing it. Now it should be no surprise that the 2 go together like ammonia and bleach when the final product's released. Does Norton even want to act? Or is he turning into a Brando-level maniac?

comment #32

Howlingman says ...

MDOC, you're clearly passionate about comic books (as am I; wondering how a DMZ flick would turn out), and I agree with your assessment of Batman. But in that case it was a successful series brought low by the law of diminishing returns. When the returns are diminished by the first film, what is the point?

I would have loved to see a great Hulk film (and The Punisher, and Daredevil, and Elektra and on and on) the first time around. I enjoyed portions of Superman Returns, which made money overall -- yet who among us clamors for a sequel? After Spider-Man 3, who is counting the days for Spider-Man 4? It's a tightrope, Spud, it's a fuckin' tightrope. It just seems a waste of money and resources to produce a sequel nobody wanted in the first place.

comment #33

christian says ...

Something is terribly wrong when Prager mimics LexG.

WRONG BITCHES!!

comment #34

hatchetface says ...

As the article states, this comic is second only to Spider-Man in sales - it's a popular book. And there's plenty of room to improve on Lee's version, which I agree took itself too seriously, and while I really enjoy the strange and exciting desert sequence in that film, in the end it simply doesn't have enough action to sustain interest. After all, this is The Hulk we're talking about. The new script is good, and as much as I appreciate cinematic destruction, I'm also really looking forward to seeing a stronger depiction of Banner, who can be a cool character.

comment #35

Pelham123 says ...

I liked Ang Lee's "Hulk" with reservations. I only saw it once and that was at the Cinerama Dome which is going to skew most impressions to the positive just for presentations sake alone. The fact that everyone I know hated it makes me wonder if I was tripping that night. Still, the Ang Lee version is looking better and better judging by what I've seen of the latest version.

comment #36

rr3333 says ...

Did they use Stallone's Chest as a template for the new Hulk?

All veins, all the time.

comment #37

TedM says ...

It seems to me the biggest problem with the comic book movies that tank at the box office (like HULK and THE PUNISHER) is that the villains aren't particularly memorable. When you think of Superman, you think Lex Luthor; Batman, the Joker, the Penguin, etc.

comment #38

jse33 says ...

So the film's being written off as a dog already, after 2 FUCKING MINUTES OF FOOTAGE? The CGI effects are not completed either. They'll fine tune the big green guy before the release date, which is still 2 full months away

comment #39

Gus Petch says ...

Sorry, JSE, but it's impossible to make a trailer this bad out of a good movie. It's not just the CGI (horrible as that looks). You can tell it's an awful movie in the first fifteen seconds when Norton delivers the line, "Not this one." That's the best zinger they can come up with to put in the trailer? "Not this one"? Think about the first Spider-Man trailer, which had that wonderful "You're not Superman, you know" line (and McGuire's classic reaction, which wasn't even in the movie). Or the Iron Man trailer, which crackles with clever, witty dialog.

No, this trailer tells you over and over again that the movie won't measure up to the good comic book adaptations: The plot looks mostly like a rehash of the first one; they apparently turn Hulk into a save-the-world superhero; the villain is so nondescript he doesn't even get a single line in the trailer; the above-mentioned absence of good lines; and yes, that awful monster and awful CGI.

Plenty of bad movies have good trailers. But a good movie having a trailer this terrible? It just doesn't happen.

comment #40

giantman says ...

One other thing that no one seems to mention, Lee's Hulk was trashed for being to "serious" and the vibe I get from this Hulk's trailer is "serious", all that solemn music and looks at the camera. I thought we were getting more action?

Of course, I would totally be up for two hours of Hulk Smash!!! And totally forget about any story at all. Banner gets blasted, turns into the Hulk and the Army chases him around the country. Period. How awesome would that be?

comment #41

Rosebudsthesled says ...

Honestly, there's a huge problem with putting the Hulk on screen, at least I think: he looks like Shrek.
The other huge problem is that they don't have enough fun with it. Whenever I think of the Hulk, the first things that come to my mind are "HULK MAD!!!!!!" and "HULK SMASH!!!!!"
It will greatly disappoint me if I see another Hulk film without him saying one of those two lines. Yes, they are silly, but they're also a lot of fun.
From the look of this trailer, it seems like they're taking this film awful seriously, and if you compare it to something like the trailer for IRON MAN, IRON MAN looks like a lot of fun and with a lot of laughs (thanks largely to Robert Downey's incredible ability to time a line). This...I'm not as sure about.
Largely because he still looks like Shrek.

comment #42

JapAdapters says ...

Where's Crackerjack Johnson when you need him?

comment #43

MDOC says ...

I'm highly suspicious of the "they'll fix the CGI there's plenty of time" talk. They said the same thing in 2003 after the awful Superbowl ad and EW cover. They didn't fix it then, why should I believe it this time?

comment #44

bb says ...

The last comic I read was 20 years ago and technically it (The Watchmen) was called a graphic novel by those in the know. Having said that, I look forward to comic book based movies because they tend to give me 2 hours of sheer entertainment. Of course that's only theory since so many turn out bad, but I like to catch that kind of fantastical action.

Lee's Hulk didn't fail because it was too serious, it failed because it was too ponderous.

I hope all the negative comments here are wrong because I'd love to see a good Hulk movie, I'm eager for Iron Man and I never read any of those comics.

Sure these movies have a built in audience but none of them become blockbusters unless they reach out to the majority of movie goers who've never cracked open a comic.

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: I defend it, because it did something with the character, and it didn't just have him run around for two hours tearing up the country-which is what I imagine we're getting with the sequel/reboot. The fight scenes were admittedly not very special, and they could have been tweaked; but Lee's adaptation opened the possibility for an exciting follow-up instead of what we'll be stuck with in this version.

Also, you're a little bit off on the Batman box office stuff. As easy as it is to trash Schumacher, Batman and Robin did indeed do well opening weekend, and even made its money back. It was Batman Begins which underperformed, and which only became profitable through WOM. Oh, and anyone who chose Kill Bill over Punisher doesn't know a good action film when they see one.

Howlingman: Punisher was good, in spite of Travolta. Even the people who hated it had nothing against Jane's performance. And it was probably cheap enough that it made its money back. Not sure about the Hulk, though.

Also, I imagine people knew about The Punisher from the Dolph Lundgren flick.

David: Kevin Costner doesn't have the variety of work to be compared to Ang Lee. I guess a better analogy would be the Singer Superman, since that's getting a reboot, too.

Rosebud: Downey-bashing aside, I'm starting to agree that Iron Man gets better with each new spot I see.

comment #46

MDOC says ...

DZ,
The Batman numbers speak for themselves. According to IMDB, Batman & Robin was budgeted at 125 million. It grossed 42 million opening weekend on the way to a 107 million domestic take. Just to clarify, 125 is greater than 107. Batman Begins opened to 48 million on it's way to a 205 million dollar domestic haul. Warner Brothers was probably hoping for a bigger opening for Begins but I'm sure everyone was satisfied with the total gross.
Your wrong about the Punisher too. There were glimpses of a good movie sporadically but it was weak overall. It's my opinion that they tried but just didn't capture the proper tone and Travolta was distracting. It grossed 33 million so it definately didn't capture audience's imaginations. This is an opinion thing that we can go round and around on, so we'll agree to disagree.

comment #47

DavidF says ...

What I love about DZ is that I read the comments and knew it was him before spotting the name.

What sold me? It was his (apparently non-ironic) declaration that there are people out there aware of Dolph Lungren having starred in "The Punisher."

Really?

Kevin Costner was a bit of a joke but my point still stands: I saw Lee's Hulk and it was very MEH - not as horrible as people say, I don't think. What is clear, I think, is that Lee's more delicate and cerebral approach was either not what Hulk needed or not what people wanted to see. Either way, he was the wrong director but I guess I admire the ambition in choosing him over, say, Brett Ratner.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: Batman and Robin made its money back worldwide. And in terms of inflation, it had a bigger opening than Batman Begins.

The Punisher was satisfying for what I expected of it. I'm not sure what else people were hoping from such a one-dimensional character, but Jane delivered. Travolta was the only weak link. And $33 million is not huge, but the film probably didn't cost that much to produce.

DavidF: "What is clear, I think, is that Lee's more delicate and cerebral approach was either not what Hulk needed or not what people wanted to see."

More like the latter than the former.

comment #49

MDOC says ...

DZ, you win. I concede that Batman & Robin was succesful. It was so good that WB immediately greenlighted Batman 5 and rewarded George Clooney with a 4 sequel deal. If you read Dave Poland, he's fond of saying quality has nothing to do with opening weekend. That's the case of Batman & Robin's opening, Hulk too for that matter. Do you disagree that a quality product led to getting the Bat franchise back on track? Would you rather have 107 million in 1997 dollars or 205 million in 2005? Worldwide grosses are tricky to track, if you have estimations I'd like you to cite your sources. Don't forget to minus out the theatres and distributor's cut. It's not easy, ask Peter Jackson.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: Batman and Robin was successful enough for the company to fund more cartoon shows and another comic book-based movie known as The Matrix. And Clooney was given the lead role in Three Kings, Perfect Storm, and Ocean's 11.

As for Hulk, it did well on its opening weekend, because it looked like a good adaptation with a decent cast.

Also, if Batman is back on track, then we'd be seeing the Justice League movie in production; and the demand for it would be higher than for Indy 4. Batman and Robin cost less, and was released across fewer theaters than
'Begins. So, adjusting for inflation, I imagine I'd want the '97 numbers.

comment #51

MDOC says ...

DZ just so we are clear. You believe that the fact that the Justice League movie has not started filming yet is proof that WB does not have faith in the Batman franchise. Do the words Dark Knight mean anything to you? Do you deny that WB has spent a fortune on DK because Batman Begins grossed 200 million domestic? The JL argument is even more ridiculous because the movie has come from nowhere to almost ready to roll despite the writers strike, Australian tax issues, a ginormous budget, and the fact it runs contrary to the conitinuity or the Superman and Batman franchises.
Come on dude, I know you like to push buttons but stop. You can't believe this. Stop , just come clean that your just trying to be contrary or I'm going to stop playing.

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: If they had that kind of confidence, the studio wouldn't be watching the dailies and hyping Nolan's sequel; it would just go into full advertising mode and sell whatever merchandise they could with the flick well in advance. Nor would the company be so concerned about whether JL's continuity had to compete with DK, just to please a director whose last film did alright for a Batman film, but nowhere near as well as Miller's last film. WB is clearly hiding something, if it has to appease Nolan more than its investors.