Who's going to be the villain in Batman 3? Ra's Al Ghul of course, because there really is no other way.

Recently, me and my friends re-watched both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight", and there was some talk about the next "Batman" film. Now all we know about the third "Batman"film at this point is that it's rumored to be in the early writing stages; no official announcements have been made by anyone at Warner Brothers or Legendary Pictures. The most talked about thing by far for the next film is "Who's the villain gonna be?!?" It's almost the first question you hear whenever the third Batman movie comes up. Everyone seems to accept the fact that the writers would be stupid to bring The Joker back in, as no one could possibly match the performance of Heath Ledger, and anyone who tried would look like they're just copying him, kind of like Brandon Routh did for Christopher Reeves in "Superman Returns". Once we accept that fact, the names of all the most popular Batman villains, including the Riddler, the Penguin, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Catwoman, etc etc etc start getting thrown out. But I really think that everyone's missing the big picture of this particular film series. If they are indeed keeping this series to a trilogy, the major villain in Batman 3 will be none other than Ra's Al Ghul (yes Liam Neeson's character from the first movie). It simply wouldn't work any other way.

Ask any Bat-geek out there, and they'll tell you that Batman has two great nemeses: The Joker and Ra's Al Ghul. These are the only two villains who have ever even come close to destroying not only Batman himself, but his entire world. In many ways, these villains are total opposites of each other. The Joker is sporadic, insane, and does what he does simply because he loves doing it without any method or thought to his madness. Ra's Al Ghul on the other hand, is maniacal, crafting, and does what he does to serve his extremist idealism. While other villains like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, The Riddler, Bane, Scarecrow, Two-Face, etc. can be easily sympathized with, and really only do what they do because of greed or revenge, Ra's Al Ghul and The Joker are cold and heartless, and will stop at no end to achieve their goals, which makes them nearly unstoppable. They are in a completely different category from the rest of Batman's villains. You simply can't get any bigger than the villains in these first two Batman movies--any other villain would simply be a joke. And since any Batman writer would be crazy to even touch the Joker again with a ten foot pole after Health Ledger's incredible and nearly irreproducible performance, Ra's Al Ghul is the only villain who could finish the trilogy off with a bang after the huge scale of the previous two movies.

The first thing I get whenever I bring up Ra's al Ghul as the villain is "No way! He's dead!!" If there's one thing that my movie-viewing experience has taught me, it's that you never believe that someone's really dead until you see a corpse, and even after that be skeptical. The last shot we see Ra's al Ghul in "Batman Begins" is as he slowly shuts his eyes as the Wayne monorail that he's on plunges off the tracks and explodes. Does that make him dead? Not in the least. "Always mind your surroundings", he constantly reminded Bruce in "Batman Begins". Do you think he could've been on that train for such a long period of time and not known the quickest way out if his plan had failed? He's one of the smartest men in the world, not to mention a master of almost every martial art known to man. I'm SURE he had a way out before it exploded. Not to mention that he had already faked his death earlier on in the movie: what's to stop him from doing it again?

And if the writers can't get creative with that, there's always one aspect of the character from the comics that wasn't even mentioned in the first movie: the Lazarus pits. Like the Biblical character they take their name from, the Lazarus pits are secret, mystic underground pits that allow Ra's al Ghul to come back to life if he's placed in them within a certain time after he dies. Because of these pits, he's been able to live for thousands of years (something that WAS mentioned in "Batman Begins"). I know the writers are going for more realism with this particular Batman series, but I don't think that this is much more far out as other concepts from the first two movies, such as the Scarecrow's "fear toxin". Either way, there are multiple angles that the writers could take that could easily (but not cheaply) explain how Ra's al Ghul is still alive.

Another crucial element of this series that makes Ra's al Ghul perfect for a return visit is his incredibly close ties to Batman's origins. This is the only Batman series (including the comics, the animated series, the 90s movies, etc) that credits Ra's al Ghul with Batman's origins. Who is a more worthy villain that someone who was responsible for the creation of the hero, and one that taught him everything he knows? Ra's al Ghul is not only physically able to stand up to Batman, but they also connect on a much deeper mental level. Also, I get the feeling that the writer's aren't trying to make these movies separate "adventures" of Batman, like the old movie series and animated series were. These movies seem to be more of a saga--they're THE story of Batman, not separate stories of his adventures. Because of this, you don't need a bajillion new villains in each movie, but Ra's al Ghul could represent the villain of the entire saga, like Emperor Palpatine is to Star Wars and Sauron is to Lord of the Rings. I really think it will be revealed that Ra's al Ghul was not only behind the events of "Batman Begins", but he also played a pivotal role behind the scenes in "The Dark Knight" and even in the early parts of "Batman 3". Ra's al Ghul is a master plotter and manipulator. What he did in Batman Begins was child's play compared to what he has done in other Batman series. I think that once the trilogy is over, you'll be able to step back and realize the big picture that Ra's al Ghul has been behind all along.

Also, getting Liam Neeson back will most likely be not much of a problem. It's more than likely that he won't appear till 2/3 of the way through the movie, as one final "revelation" that Batman needs to defeat. After the success of The Dark Knight, "Batman 3" is going to be a guaranteed multi-million dollar blockbuster, and I'm sure Liam Neeson knows this, even if he doesn't appear on any of the movie posters or teasers to try to keep it a secret as much as possible.

For these reasons and more, there is really no other choice for a major villain in "Batman 3". Sure we'll probably see one or two more "classic" Batman villains. Now that Rachel's gone, I'm sure we'll probably see Catwoman in the next movie to spark the romantic interest. But Catwoman isn't a master plotter or evil in any sense of the word: she just likes to steal things for fun. There's no way she could hold up a whole movie as the villain. There's simply no other villain that could send the series out with a bang and prove as much as a threat to Batman as either of the villains in the first two movies. Because of this, it's gotta be Ra's al Ghul.

[Update 03/12/10] In a recent interview with Christopher Nolan done in the Los Angeles Times about the new "Superman" project he's starting, he had this to say about the third Batman movie:

“Without getting into specifics, the key thing that makes the third film a great possibility for us is that we want to finish our story,” he said. “And in viewing it as the finishing of a story rather than infinitely blowing up the balloon and expanding the story."

Also:

"Unlike the comics, these things don’t go on forever in film and viewing it as a story with an end is useful. Viewing it as an ending, that sets you very much on the right track about the appropriate conclusion and the essence of what tale we’re telling."

This seems right on target with what I said earlier in this post. The third film WILL be the end of the trilogy, and thus Nolan says that he does not want to "infinitely blow up the balloon" of the story. It's further evidence to suggest that he won't introduce any major new villains, and attempt to tie together what he already has in place. It seems that (like I said earlier) the three films are meant to be viewed as three acts in one larger story. Introducing some other major villain wouldn't serve this purpose, as it would only seek to drive the story forever forward. That's why I really think that Nolan is going to make the best use of the villains he already has, and since the Joker is almost positively out, that leaves us with only one major villain left: Ra's al Ghul.

Been a long time--AVATAR review

Okay guys, I'm super sorry for not updating my blog since September--the school year's been pretty crazy and I just never really got around to it. So I figured that now that Christmas break has started, I can kick things back into gear with a good ole movie review of a movie I saw at midnight last night. Ladies and gentlemen: my review of James Cameron's AVATAR.

First, a clarification: this movie is NOT...I repeat NOT based on the Nickelodeon cartoon of the same name. There is in fact a movie coming next year out based on the Nickelodeon cartoon entitled The Last Airbender. But this is entirely different. The original script for this movie was written all the way back in 1994 by writer/director James Cameron, only a few years after his smash hit and action movie revolution film Terminator 2 and only a few years before he created the current box-office record holder Titanic. However, Cameron decided to wait on actually making Avatar, as the budget would have been more than he could afford at the time and he felt that the CGI technology necessary to do the script justice just wasn't there yet. But a couple of years ago, Cameron felt that the time was finally right to make his masterpiece. Using some of the most advanced CGI and 3-D technology seen yet (more on that later), revolutionary filming techniques, and a budget of over $300 million, Cameron has finally brought his dream project to life. So just how good is it?

The answer: simply amazing.

I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I can start talking about the plot. It is certainly a very complex plot that I won't spoil for you, but just to give you the gist of it, Avatar takes place in the year 2154 on the fictional forest planet of Pandora, where an alien race (the Navi) reside. However, humans from the outside world are deeply interested in accessing some sort of extremely valuable mineral located under Pandora's surface, and the Navi living right on top of the largest deposit of the mineral on the entire planet. Using a breakthrough scientific technology, humans have begun creating "Avatars", which are bodies made up of a mix of human and Navi DNA. They have developed a technology that allows humans to actually shift their consciousness into these Avatars, allowing them to live inside these bodies and more easily interact with the natives. The story follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), an ex-U.S. Marine, who is assigned to become one of these Avatars and go into the dense forests of Pandora in order to discover what it will take to get the natives to relocate so the humans can access the mineral deposit. However, not everyone agrees with the science community's diplomatic policy: the Military, led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), is all in favor of simply wiping out the Navi in order to gain access to the deposit. Without giving too much away, Jake Sully, as an Avatar, is in a race against time to fulfill his mission for the humans, but on the way discovers new things about the Navi, the forests of Pandora, and himself.

It really is an incredible story and is done extremely remarkably. It has close ties to stories we've all heard before, including everything from Pocahontas to the U.S.'s westward expansion to the Iraq War. And it's really one of the only thing that you can fault this movie for: the simple fact that we have heard this story a million times before and it is fairly predictable. But it's really hard to not like the movie because of this fact, as the story is so incredibly timeless and relevant to us today. Though the movie has an obvious bias, it never feels like it gets too preachy, and it really does hold your interest the whole way through, even if you can probably guess what is going to happen.

Now let's talk about visuals. This certainly isn't a movie that you can just brush off the visuals on; the visuals are a MAJOR component of the movie. It's so easy to see why such an incredibly high budget was needed to make this movie. The CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is easily the most advanced seen in a movie yet. The entirely CGI jungles of Pandora are so incredibly lush and lifelike you'd swear it was a real place (that is, perhaps until you witness the awe that is Pandora's floating mountain range). But where the movie really makes HUGE leaps is with the entirely CGI Navi and Avatar characters. The creatures are so lifelike, their expressions so accurately portraying every last drop of human emotion, that it's hard not to think that these creatures really exist. The way they move and act doesn't look so obviously fake like the billions and billions of other CGI creatures out there. This is the leap that CGI in movies has so desperately needed since it began being used in the mid-90s. We're going to look back and laugh at the so obviously fake CGI that existed prior to this movie. It's really no surprise that such a leap came from James Cameron--after all, the T-1000's morphing ability in Terminator 2 was one of the first major examples of CGI used in movies.

And after seeing Avatar in 3-D, I'm totally convinced that it's the ONLY way to truly experience this film. As one of the first feature films to be fully FILMED in 3-D using special cameras that actually capture depth, it really really delivers. This definitely isn't the gimmicky 3-D where it's blatantly obvious that many shots were catered to making you go "woah!" when you see it in 3-D. Cameron just tells the film the way it should be told, and uses the 3-D effect to greatly enhance it. It really makes it feel more like you're looking out a window into the vast Pandora forest rather than simply viewing it on a flat movie screen. The depth provided by the 3-D is simply stunning. The movie really comes alive in 3-D, and working together with the incredible CGI effects, really transports you into the world of Pandora. I honestly think I would be really disappointed viewing the movie in normal 2-D now that I've seen all three dimensions of it.

The acting is all top notch too. Worthington's character is a really likable guy, and you can really see and entirely understand the conflict he's going through. The villain is also someone that you really really hate by the end of the movie. All of the other actors, including the voice acting and motion capture work done for the Avatars and Navi, is all absolutely top notch.

Overall, Avatar really is a spectacular movie. I really feel like this movie is very comparable to Cameron's original Terminator: a plot that isn't entirely original, yet it just works so well because of the incredible new take on it, combined with some fantastic visual effects. Cameron has already stated that he plans on making sequels if the movie does well in the box office, and it's really one of those movies that I would be totally okay with there being a sequel for. If Cameron DOES make a sequel, I really hopes he does what he did with Terminator 2 and create a sequel that combines an entirely original concept to all of the amazing things done in the first movie to create a movie that will be the standard to which every other movie in the genre is held up to. But for now we have Avatar, which is an absolutely incredible movie in it's own right that may not completely change the way in which movies are written, but will most certainly change the way in which they are presented.

I give it 4.5/5 stars.

Bringing someone from the past...

Ok now we're getting into the meat of my brain.  This is something that just randomly pops up in my head every once in a while when I see something that would be strange to previous generations:  What would someone in the past think of our present time?  And if we could bring someone from the past, who would we bring?  How would we explain our present customs and the way things we take for granted as everyday objects work?  

To begin with, if we could time travel and bring someone from the past to the present, who would we bring?  To me, that would really depend on what time period we are bringing them from.  If we're talking about anytime after the 1920s, I don't think it would be much of a problem to bring anyone we wanted, because they would probably be able to grasp our consumerist society and rapid growth in technology no problem.  However, before that we would have to be much more selective of who we brought.  We would need to bring a very open-minded person, someone who can accept that the world could have advanced far beyond what they're used to.  If we're talking, say 200 years ago or earlier, we would have to bring an intellectual.  An average person from that far in the past witnessing what our world has become today would probably shock them, and they would be unable to adapt to our society because they do not understand the immense progress we've been through.  However, if we brought an intellectual: someone who would sometimes have thought about where society was going in the future, it would be much easier for them to accept our technological changes and learn to adapt to them because they already have accepted that the world won't stay the same forever.

Now the question is, who would we bring?  I don't know why, but the person that almost always popped into my head was Benjamin Franklin.  I have always wondered what he would have to say about our society today.  He is obviously an intellectual--I don't think anyone who's not extremely wise could have written something like Poor Richard's Almanac, which has proverbs in it that not only applied to Franklin's present time, but to all time.  I just wonder what he would have to say about what our society has become.  Would he approve of our consumerist society?  Would he understand why so many people buy so many things they really don't need?

And what about things we take for granted in our everyday lives?  If I walked into a room and turned on a light switch for example, he would probably be scared shitless, and wonder what is going on.  Could we offer him an explanation of what exactly was happening that satisfied him?  Let's take it a step further.  Supposed we turned on a computer and showed him the internet.  I think the simple fact that we have something that could project thousands of tiny pixels of light would completely surprise and confuse him to no end, never mind the fact that a computer consists of tons and tons of chips that store and read information using electricity and convert it into a visual display for us, or even the fact that every computer in the world is connected together by the internet.  I'm sure he wouldn't understand it, but could he grow to accept it?  Would it scare him?  

And how about our customs?  Could we get him to understand our concept of sanitation?  Could we explain to him that there are billions of tiny little one celled creatures everywhere called germs that can potentially do us harm if we do not control them by keeping clean?  People back then did not take a bath even close to once a day.  Washing up was to remove visible dirt, not germs, which is something that wouldn't be discovered until more than a hundred years later.  Would he understand our strict concerns for sanitation, or would he just not get it?

And what if we were to get someone from say, a thousand years ago?  Two thousand?  How much different would that be?

But all this is obviously just food for thought right now--just something that takes my attention every once in a while when I see how quickly our society grows and changes.  Let me know what you guys think.