YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!https://www.superherohype.com/news/batmannews.php?id=9349
Source?!
Don't worry. Giant boats will save us.
But MayansWe still have five months to enjoy the movie!
I was with you until you said kettle corn. Yuck.
Is the pending title still "The Caped Crusader", or was that just a rumor?
Is the pending title still "The Caped Crusader", or was that just a rumor?
I am pumped about this third Batman film
Total rumor. The only confirmed facts are:
The movie will be made
Christopher Nolan and his team are back to head it up
Bale is back and so is the rest of the non-villain major cast members
epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
I think I'm the only one who really didn't like Batman Begins.epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
I must be the only person in the world who didn't blow their load all over The Dark Knight
:rollin :rollin :rollin
It's true, I watched him do it. Of course, he did it at the part where the girl is being blown up as Harvey Dent escapes the other simultaneous bomb. That's why your mom is also called "Twoface."
I must be the only person in the world who didn't blow their load all over The Dark Knight
I didn't, I blew my load all over your mom.
But, I did it while watching The Dark Knight.
They should purposely try to cram every possible villain in so that the plot is incredibly incomprehensible and turns a good character into a bizarre half-parody.No, Shumacher already did that.
That would be a fresh idea in terms of Batman films.
Well, I think it's better than The Dark Knight. I like The Dark Knight, but it's bloated, and the Two Face story-line was underdeveloped (not that I really want to see more of Eckhart in the role).I think I'm the only one who really didn't like Batman Begins.epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
I wonder if they're gonna be introducing Jason Todd or Dick Grason in the next movie.God, I hope not. ANYTHING but that.
You just both insulted Eckhart and TDK. Double fail.I think it's a great movie, but it could've easily been half an hour shorter, and it would've been better for it.
You just both insulted Eckhart and TDK. Double fail.I think it's a great movie, but it could've easily been half an hour shorter, and it would've been better for it.
They should purposely try to cram every possible villain in so that the plot is incredibly incomprehensible and turns a good character into a bizarre half-parody.No, Shumacher already did that.
That would be a fresh idea in terms of Batman films.
Well, I think it's better than The Dark Knight. I like The Dark Knight, but it's bloated, and the Two Face story-line was underdeveloped (not that I really want to see more of Eckhart in the role).I think I'm the only one who really didn't like Batman Begins.epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
Riddle Me This...
The success of 2008’s “The Dark Knight,” directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Christian Bale and Heath Ledger, obviously begs for a follow-up. The box office numbers alone dictate it. Normally, that wouldn’t be an issue, but as most of you know who have stumbled upon this humble blog, nothing with “The Dark Knight” is “normal.”
First, the unfortunate passing of Heath Ledger, and his incredible, iconic performance of the Joker, is a huge mountain to get over. Not only did his death take a toll on Nolan and Ledger’s peers, but how do you recast the Joker in THIS Batman franchise? In my opinion, you can’t. It was just too intense. It was Ledger’s finest moment as an actor, and a performance for the ages. Ledger’s rendition truly captured the character and any recasting would simply be overshadowed. After all, it took almost 20 years to recast the character after Jack Nicholson’s portrayal in 1989’s “Batman.”
Second, Christopher Nolan, in my opinion, was so shaken by Ledger’s death, that he simply may not want to return. From Internet rumors, I heard that prior to Ledger’s passing, the Joker was in the cards for a third Nolan-led Batman film. Can Nolan get ove r that and continue? Sure he can. But what it will take is time and a story that once again transcends what a “comic book movie” is all about.
Finally, Bale won’t take on the mantle of the Bat without Nolan. That isn’t news, Bale has said that before, specifically, after 2005’s “Batman Begins.” Here is a recent quote from a “Hollywood Insider” (as always, take everything with a grain of salt) on a blog:
"Chris is in the mindset that he is unlikely to be able to top what was achieved with Dark Knight," reveals a Hollywood insider. "He has a number of new projects he's working on and Batman is not a priority for him right now. Christian is unlikely to want to do another one without Chris. He feels only he understands the dynamic of the character and so it could well be that there will have to be a new Batman and director if there is to be a third movie."
Source: https://www.imnotobsessed.com/2009/06/23/christian-bale-wont-do-another-batman-movie
Here is an idea to chew on to make sure that doesn’t happen:
The rumor mill has three main villains floating about: Riddler, Catwoman and Penguin. Think for a moment about the Nolan-led Batman franchise. What are the most important attributes he has emphasized with his two films? Realism and believability. All three of those proposed villains can do that, but the most intriguing, the one that treads new ground and can be most believable, is Riddler.
In two movies, we've seen the establishment of the Batman persona, how the character has dealt with the split personality issue of Bruce Wayne and Batman, and is successful in balancing the two. You also have the physical combat and training of the Batman character on display. But what you don't have is the development of Batman's DETECTIVE skills, which is a key element of the character.
So you bring in Riddler, which sets up the need for Batman to develop those detective skills. To be fair, Nolan has touched on it lightly, with how the different companies in “Batman Begins” were set up to purchase materials for Batman's weapons and gear, and of course, to buy back Wayne Enterprises. Further, tracking the Joker in “The Dark Knight” also showed some of it.
But the true detective work that Batman is famous for needs to be done to expand the character, and Riddler would help do this.
Throw away, however, the previous screen portrayals of Riddler. What is needed here is a depiction to capture audiences and expand the realism. I'm thinking a serial killer, along the lines of Buffalo Bill, but with the ability to project himself as a normal person and hold extremely intelligent conversation. But then be so dark, that you see (have to keep the rating at PG-13, so not actually seeing it) he tortures and kills people, leaving clues taunting Batman like we all remember Riddler does (this isn't the idiotic Riddler character portrayed by Jim Carey). This could be a gripping angle on the character which would necessitate Batman not being able to solve everything by physical brute force -- how detective work is necessary first in order to solve complex crimes.
I’m not saying you take the laughter out of Riddler’s character, and make him completely murderous. The riddles, the obsession with the riddles should all be there, and utilized. But utilizing Riddler in a darker way would set up the main plot and adventure of the story, further the development of the Batman character, and bring a suspenseful and realistic tone to the film.
That said, I don’t think Catwoman and Penguin are out of the question but they need to be understated. Catwoman should be introduced first and foremost as Selina Kyle, her true identity. She should be the new love interest in Bruce Wayne’s life. She’s an obvious fit – not available much in th e evenings, leads a double life like Bruce, etc. The “perfect” girl for Bruce. Of course, we all know the truth, but the Bruce Wayne character wouldn’t. By introducing Selina, you also advance the Bruce Wayne character as well…the first major relationship after the death of Rachel Dawes.
Does Catwoman actually make an appearance? Absolutely. But for 3/4 of the film, you should only hear about Catwoman in brief mentions such as Alfred talking about it showing up in the paper, Batman just missing her during one of his patrols, etc. All of this leads up to the conclusion of the movie, where Bruce and Selina realize who each other are, and that their relationship will not work. It’s a tried and true way of doing it, but a necessary one if you want to further develop the Bruce Wayne/Batman character.
In regard to Penguin, he’s actually already been introduced, albeit in book form. If you read the “prequel” to “The Dark Knight,” “Gotham Knight,” you see Oswald Cobblepot setting up his “business interests” in Gotham. That was a great move to casually add in the character to this franchise. You reintroduce that in the third film, with Cobblepot being a minor criminal element first, but one Batman can’t really put away, due to a lack of evidence. Of course, you reveal his nickname, “The Penguin,” and have a rather portly actor portray him. Not obnoxiously over the top like Danny Devito did in “Batman Returns,” but a believable, sneaky criminal.
His involvement in the movie plot should be extremely minimal, but just enough so that the viewer realizes that this guy is going to be serious trouble in the future for Batman, setting up a future film role for Penguin. I have faith that David Goyer and Jonathan Nolan (the writers of Batman Begin and The Dark Knight) could do that well.
Now, if you’re a Batman fanatic like I am (and if you read all that, give yourself a hand as you’re in the club), the elephant in the room is how to deal with the Joker. He’s alive, and presumably in Arkham Asylum. As a tribute to Heath Ledger, this is what I propose:
Have Batman visit Arkham Asylum in the third film to check on Scarecrow (another guest spot by Cillian Murphy), some of the other various no-name criminals, and bang, you see the nameplate of “The Joker” on a cell door as Batman walks through. He stops, briefly, after hearing some laughter. You DO NOT AT ALL, recast The Joker. Batman DOES NOT, AT ANY TIME (nor does the viewer) SEE the Joker. You simply hear his laugh, and witness Batman being taunted by the Joker using one or two lines and some laughter.
Who should say those lines? Very easy. Mark Hamill. Hamill is revered by Batman fans for doing the voiceover work for the Joker in “Batman: The Animated Series.” He had clearly gotten the psychotic “laugh” down, and by having that one tense scene in Arkham in the next Nolan-led Batman film, you serve two purposes. First, you address “The Joker situation,” so fans see where he is, and you also pay an appropriate tribute to Heath Ledger’s work by not recasting him.
So there are some thoughts on a believable take on the villains and basic outline of what should be address in any Nolan-led third Batman film. Obviously, you need that meaty serial killer story that I mentioned using Riddler, and I purposefully left out my own ideas on that. Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer would have a field day with this angle, and they’d likely pull it off in a way that makes it not only dark and believable, but also accessible to a broad audience, just like “The Dark Knight.”
Time will tell what, if anything, comes to pass with a Nolan-led third Batman film. Nolan is notorious for concentrating only on the film he is making at that particular moment, and he’s currently shooting “Inception,” and rumor has it, has another film on his plate after that. So there is going to be a lengthy hiatus, even if he does agree to do a third Bat-film.
So what do we do in the interim? Or what should happen if Nolan and Bale step down for good? I have some ideas on that too, but that’s for my next blog.
I don't think you've interpreted that exchange correctly. emindead is the one who didn't really like Batman Begins.Well, I think it's better than The Dark Knight. I like The Dark Knight, but it's bloated, and the Two Face story-line was underdeveloped (not that I really want to see more of Eckhart in the role).I think I'm the only one who really didn't like Batman Begins.epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
You like the Dark Knight, you think Begins is better, but you really didn't like Begins?
I don't think you've interpreted that exchange correctly. emindead is the one who didn't really like Batman Begins.Well, I think it's better than The Dark Knight. I like The Dark Knight, but it's bloated, and the Two Face story-line was underdeveloped (not that I really want to see more of Eckhart in the role).I think I'm the only one who really didn't like Batman Begins.epic, lets see if it can best The Dark Knight!And if it can best Batman Begins, even better!
You like the Dark Knight, you think Begins is better, but you really didn't like Begins?
I also would like to know your opinions about the previous (pre-Nolan) Batman movies. Have they been actually bad for Batman, in the sense of not giving a correct image of what the character is all about?
The rest of the Batmans were a complete insult to the type of character that is portrayed and they were meant to be for people who have no idea of who batman and just want a superhero movie with cheesy one liners and hot actors/actresses.that´s what I thought, and maybe that´s why the Nolan movies can be shocking. Watching Batman in flames, riding a horse and scaring the hell out of people (is that a scene on Batman Begins?) is too far from the typical friendly superhero character.
The rest of the Batmans were a complete insult to the type of character that is portrayed and they were meant to be for people who have no idea of who batman and just want a superhero movie with cheesy one liners and hot actors/actresses.that´s what I thought, and maybe that´s why the Nolan movies can be shocking. Watching Batman in flames, riding a horse and scaring the hell out of people (is that a scene on Batman Begins?) is too far from the typical friendly superhero character.
Yeah, that one. I have bad memory for movies.The rest of the Batmans were a complete insult to the type of character that is portrayed and they were meant to be for people who have no idea of who batman and just want a superhero movie with cheesy one liners and hot actors/actresses.that´s what I thought, and maybe that´s why the Nolan movies can be shocking. Watching Batman in flames, riding a horse and scaring the hell out of people (is that a scene on Batman Begins?) is too far from the typical friendly superhero character.
Reneranucci,
You are thinking of the scene in Batman Begins when the Scarecrow is on a police horse, and the shot is from the perspective of a child drugged with his toxin.
recasting for joker would be a disaster.
The only way I can see handeling the joker is to do a slightly different take on Samsaras idea. Have him not be seen but heard, only instead of using Skywalker, try to find outtakes or unused scenes for TDK and use Ledgers lines from that, sure he filmed some scenes we didn't get to see.
(https://cdn2.knowyourmeme.com/i/30155/original/i_came_anime.jpg)(https://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/8174/original/Professor_Oak_Came_.jpg)
Ye, but would be easier to just take in a new villain. :P
Ye, but would be easier to just take in a new villain. :P
Ye, but would be easier to just take in a new villain. :P
True, but something along the lines of what Samsara suggested is a subtle way of adding something that ties in continuity with the other films, which is always nice.
True, but something along the lines of what Samsara suggested is a subtle way of adding something that ties in continuity with the other films, which is always nice.
True, but something along the lines of what Samsara suggested is a subtle way of adding something that ties in continuity with the other films, which is always nice.
Good storytelling is more important than continuity.
Of course, but good storytelling and continuity are not mutually exclusive, and the latter can enhance the former when done correctly.
You know what I want? More Bruce Wayne. He was rather absent from TDK. It seemed Batman and Joker too up all the screentime, which was fine, but seriously, Bruce Wayne isn't some inconvient character, he's pretty damn important.
Christian Bale can't go low and gritty enough
reneranucci,Awesome. Thank you very much! Not only was it extremely well-written (really good!) but I think it was very insightful. I´m reading your post about the Dark Knight returns, great stuff there!
The blog you asked for is now posted. www.gothamcitytimes.blogspot.com
Just my take on your question. :) It was a good thing to blog on. I kept it short, but gave my thoughts.
No-one's mentioned her yet but... Harley Quinn...? Kind of ties in with the Joker being in Arkham too.
I think that a Riddler + Penguin villains will work pretty good in Batman Three.Mr. Freeze is actually a great character... but yeah, they pretty much destroyed him with Arnold and that god-forsaken movie.
Mr. Freeze is not a bad character, and I've heard that Nolan considered doing the new movie with this character, it's just that Arnold's performance will be remembered forever in infamy, and Nolan is aware of this.
I think that a Riddler + Penguin villains will work pretty good in Batman Three.
Mr. Freeze is not a bad character, and I've heard that Nolan considered doing the new movie with this character, it's just that Arnold's performance will be remembered forever in infamy, and Nolan is aware of this.
i saw a fake movie poster featuring NPH as the riddler. That would be awesome :D
Please, if at all possible, no Riddler.
If you say so. I read the Batman comics off and on when I was younger. Most of the time that I was "on" the Riddler must have been locked up. I never read a "great" Riddler story - he always seemed a lame, second-rate villain when I did see him. Maybe I just didn't get to read the right books.Please, if at all possible, no Riddler.
I really don't understand the slack that the Riddler gets, but I think it's largely due to Jim Carrey's portrayal of him in Burton's film, which is extremely inaccurate of comic book Riddler. In the comic books he's nothing short of a genius, the Joker has no plan as he stated in the film, whereas the Riddler has a plan that you will most definitely follow because he's always two steps ahead of you. Samsara hit the nail on the head whenever he talked about Batman using his detective skills, something a lot of people don't know about Batman because he's too busy being angry and beating people in the face. That's why they were named DC comics: "Detective Comics" (don't believe me, look it up).
The Riddler is the best contender for the 3rd film, I believe it wholeheartedly.
If you say so. I read the Batman comics off and on when I was younger. Most of the time that I was "on" the Riddler must have been locked up. I never read a "great" Riddler story - he always seemed a lame, second-rate villain when I did see him. Maybe I just didn't get to read the right books.
On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly about Batman using his detective skills.
Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler was the only good thing about Forever, other than Nicole Kidman -oh the wet dreams I had back then- and that was JS's movie, not Tim Burton.
You think it worked? I thought it was awful.Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler was the only good thing about Forever, other than Nicole Kidman -oh the wet dreams I had back then- and that was JS's movie, not Tim Burton.
Burton produced the film. I think it's the reason why Forever worked, and still had many dark elements, unlike Batman & Robin.
But my point is, I don't think the Riddler would make an interesting villain in the third film because a villain with elaborate schemes has already been explored (if not to the "oooh, look how clever I am" level of the Riddler). If they did use the Riddler, unless they make incredible efforts to distinguish him from the Joker, it could come across as nothing but a repeat, and I'm not sure that Nolan would run that kind of risk.
You think it worked? I thought it was awful.Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler was the only good thing about Forever, other than Nicole Kidman -oh the wet dreams I had back then- and that was JS's movie, not Tim Burton.
Burton produced the film. I think it's the reason why Forever worked, and still had many dark elements, unlike Batman & Robin.
Sure, Forever was campier than the Keaton movies, but at least it got the character right. I tried watching Batman Returns the other day and couldn't get past the following:You think it worked? I thought it was awful.Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler was the only good thing about Forever, other than Nicole Kidman -oh the wet dreams I had back then- and that was JS's movie, not Tim Burton.
Burton produced the film. I think it's the reason why Forever worked, and still had many dark elements, unlike Batman & Robin.
Just cause he didn't kill doesn't mean they got the character right.Care to elaborate on how they got the character wrong? Not counting batnipples.
Up until BB and TDK, he was the most developed Batman I've seen on screen, though I know that's not saying much. They spent quite a bit of time exploring his parents' deaths and his guilt for Two Face's creation.
Up until BB and TDK, he was the most developed Batman I've seen on screen, though I know that's not saying much. They spent quite a bit of time exploring his parents' deaths and his guilt for Two Face's creation.
They spent time in the first movie with his parents, yes. But we're talking Batman Forever. His deal with Harvey was barely touched upon and wa shallow as hell. But your right, it was better than the Adam West one, but as you said that's not saying much.
Agreed. The TV show was what it was. It was funny, it entertained, and got me interested in Batman. I wish they would release that show on DVD at some point..
Agreed. The TV show was what it was. It was funny, it entertained, and got me interested in Batman. I wish they would release that show on DVD at some point..
Have you seen the 40's batman?
Who doesn't love the Batwatusi! ;DMe.
Agreed. The TV show was what it was. It was funny, it entertained, and got me interested in Batman. I wish they would release that show on DVD at some point..
Have you seen the 40's batman?
I almost picked the episodes up on DVD (if we are talking about the same thing) three times now and stopped. So no.
Agreed. The TV show was what it was. It was funny, it entertained, and got me interested in Batman. I wish they would release that show on DVD at some point..
Have you seen the 40's batman?
I almost picked the episodes up on DVD (if we are talking about the same thing) three times now and stopped. So no.
I got em a while ago.....they are......well...........yea. Horrible. But stylistically very much paved the way for Adam West and his group.
Bring on 'The Boy Wonder'
If there is one thing all Bat-fans can agree on, it’s that the Robin character splits the fan base. Really, there is no middle ground. Either you like the Robin character and think he adds something to Batman/Bruce Wayne’s existence, or you despise him, thinking Robin is “campy” and a burden on the Batman world.
Friends, I’m firmly entrenched in the prior category. The Boy Wonder is very much a necessary part of the Bat-world. Let me explain why.
First, Dick Grayson/Robin makes Batman more real, more human. Let’s face it folks, one of the reasons we love Batman so much is that he’s essentially the only superhero that is realistic. Bruce Wayne taking Dick Grayson as his ward, and ultimately as his partner against crime, furthers the maturity and development of Bruce Wayne (the man) and Batman (the hero).
As Bruce gets older, goes through more “fake” relationships, carrying out his “cover” life as a rich, flamboyant playboy, a son, at least legitimately, isn’t possible. In comes Dick Grayson, whose parents are gone, and is full of anger, much like Bruce himself at the same age. So he mentors Dick, becomes a father figure, takes joy in Dick’s development as a person and at the same time, becomes more of a man himself, now that he is responsible for another human being. It’s a natural evolutionary step for Bruce Wayne.
For Batman, much the same is true. How long can one guy fight alone, in darkness, without a helping hand? How long until the crazed psychos that Batman deals with finally put a crack in the Caped Crusader’s resolve? Having a young partner (and ultimately, someone to take the mantle, eventually) gives Batman an heir, but more importantly, a partner and friend that will watch his back.
This of course brings risks (relying on another), but what doesn’t?
Of course, there are those out there like Bill Ramey (founder of Batman-on-Film) that can’t stand Robin in the slightest and think he’s a waste of time. To each his own, but while Robin may have been founded with the word “campy” in mind, to appeal to young kids, the character has evolved into much more than that.
So what spurred this blog on Robin?
Well, the aforementioned Batman-on-Film Web site recently threw up a link to MTV’s Splash page, where it asked what “Batman 3” rumor would we mostly likely want to see happen. While Bill’s ego is about on-par with the size of Texas (a joke, Bill, everything is bigger in Texas, right?), I’m sure he, like most of us, like the rumor of Johnny Depp to play the Riddler (and he could pull off the vision of The Riddler that I mention a couple of blogs ago).
Yet the interesting cast rumor on there had Shia LaBeouf as Robin. Wait, don’t start flipping out yet. It’s just a rumor, and probably an unlikely one. First, Shia is too old to play Robin. While it is true Dick Grayson is more like 12 or 13 when he’s introduced, realistically, the character needs to be in his mid-late teens when he starts as Robin to really work (just from a physical maturation perspeective). Shia, as young as he looks, ain’t pullin’ that one off, no matter how dopey his lines in the Transformers movies are.
Second, if Christopher Nolan is doing the third Batman film, I believe he’s already stated his vision of Batman doesn’t have Robin in it. So if we get what most Bat-fans want (Nolan returning), it is likely Robin will not make an appearance. Although, it should be noted, he said “Robin,” not “Dick Grayson.”
Personally, I believe there is a place for the latter toward the end of a third film. In one of my prior blog entries, I wrote a long description on the villains, but elected not to really draft a script of the film. One of things I would include in that third film would be introduction of Dick Grayson.
Why? Because I stated earlier, it continues Bruce Wayne’s character development. You don’t need Robin in a third film at all. But you do mix in the back story how Dick’s parents were killed, and see Bruce reaching out to a young man who went through what he did, albeit Bruce was a bit younger.
Anyway, there you have it. Yes, I’m a Robin fan. I’m not a “campy” Robin fan, but I do think the character is an absolutely necessary beacon of light in a character that gets notoriously dark and jaded over the years. While I like that, and it makes gritty films and comics, I prefer realism. And having Dick Grayson in Bruce Wayne’s life, just makes sense.
Hey wow, I completely disagree with that. I think not only is Robin unnecessary, but he is in fact a liability, and tends to drag things down. I read Batman comics fairly regularly throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I don't ever remember a great Batman story that featured Robin. I even hated him on Super Friends.
Batman works best on his own, not with Robin, not with Batgirl, and frankly, not in the Justice League, either. Just my two cents.
You didn't think the Batman story with Jason Todd getting blown away by the Joker (Death in the Family) was great? The emotional trauma Batman goes through? I thought that was a riveting character development moment. Sure, the whole Middle East-based thing was par for the course with political events at the time, but what happened with the character and events leading up to it was a great thing.Well, it was great that Jason Todd was killed. Do you remember that fans had to vote for who would die, Todd or the Joker? That was no contest. Jason Todd was awful.
I also thought later on, the re-introduction of Robin through Tim Drake was another great storyline.*shrugs* It was an unnecessary storyline. I mean, sure, I liked Drake better than Todd, but neither was necessary. Batman is best when solitary.
Robin was done campy until the 1990s. After that, the character had a different bent to it.If you say so. I even used to buy the Robin comic, hoping it would change my mind. Never happened.
Hey wow, I completely disagree with that. I think not only is Robin unnecessary, but he is in fact a liability, and tends to drag things down. I read Batman comics fairly regularly throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I don't ever remember a great Batman story that featured Robin. I even hated him on Super Friends.There's a really good movie, really dark; it actually ended up being PG-13. The only time I've ever enjoyed Robin's presence:
Batman works best on his own, not with Robin, not with Batgirl, and frankly, not in the Justice League, either. Just my two cents.
Hey wow, I completely disagree with that. I think not only is Robin unnecessary, but he is in fact a liability, and tends to drag things down. I read Batman comics fairly regularly throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I don't ever remember a great Batman story that featured Robin. I even hated him on Super Friends.There's a really good movie, really dark; it actually ended up being PG-13. The only time I've ever enjoyed Robin's presence:
Batman works best on his own, not with Robin, not with Batgirl, and frankly, not in the Justice League, either. Just my two cents.
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
Fucking masterpiece. I never even really watched the cartoon, but this was brilliant.
p.s. But Robin must always have green, orange-red, and yellow. This black-red bullsh*t needs to end. :lol
(https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t87/Guitarded101/robinlol.png?t=1273603126)
Hey wow, I completely disagree with that. I think not only is Robin unnecessary, but he is in fact a liability, and tends to drag things down. I read Batman comics fairly regularly throughout the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and I don't ever remember a great Batman story that featured Robin. I even hated him on Super Friends.There's a really good movie, really dark; it actually ended up being PG-13. The only time I've ever enjoyed Robin's presence:
Batman works best on his own, not with Robin, not with Batgirl, and frankly, not in the Justice League, either. Just my two cents.
Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker
Fucking masterpiece. I never even really watched the cartoon, but this was brilliant.
I'll take that a step further, in that I never really enjoyed Batman Beyond until that flick. Especially given that the new Batman was able to take down the villain like Bruce Wayne never could, because he wasn't Bruce Wayne. Sounds kinda silly written out, but it makes sense in the story.
(https://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t87/Guitarded101/robingay.png?t=1273612612)*snip*
are you by any chance going to rock me like a hurricane?
p.s. But Robin must always have green, orange-red, and yellow. This black-red bullsh*t needs to end. :lol
No.
1. The only argument for it is nostalgia and that's not a good reason to do anything. If you disagree, I will force you to watch Journey's last live DVD until you change your mind.
2. In and of itself, it's campy and silly looking.
3. Batman does a lot of what he does by stealth, in the dark, at night. Red, yellow, and green, or any other combination that screams out "hey bad guys! Here I am!" is not a good thing.
Robin gives Batman character development, but not the kind I'm really interested in. The most interesting parts of Batman are how his personal demons drive him into a literal psychosis that makes him put on a Bat suit and fight people who somehow make him look sane. In a larger sense, Robin just proves the obvious, Wayne has zero capacity to really parent children. Beyond that, I just don't understand what Robin can be used to show about Batman that Alfred or other secondary characters can be.
hef:No.
Wouldn't you agree that Batman/Bruce Wayne, strictly in terms of character development, benefits from being put in a position to look out for someone other than himself?
I respect you're anti-Robin. You're not the first, and you are absolutely not going to be the last. :lol I just happen to think that in regard to developing the character, Dick Grayson brings a whole new element to the life of Bruce Wayne and Batman and is an intriguing left turn that can lead to some great storytelling.If Bruce Wayne started molesting dead horses, that would also be an intriguing left turn that could lead to some great storytelling.
But I will say this - the campy stuff was ridiculous. But the dynamic between Wayne and Grayson, and that father role is really something I'd enjoy seeing done "correctly" in the future. It doesn't HAVE to be B3 (it would probably be overkill, in retrospect). But at some point, I'd like to see it done right.There is nothing in Bruce Wayne's background to indicate that he could possibly be a good father. The whole concept just makes no sense to me. Robin seems like a dumbing-down of the character to me.
p.s. But Robin must always have green, orange-red, and yellow. This black-red bullsh*t needs to end. :lolI'm with bosky, those day-glo colors are awful. They make no sense in conjunction with Batman's character...kind of like the rest of Robin.
If Bruce Wayne started molesting dead horses, that would also be an intriguing left turn that could lead to some great storytelling.
Besides, Robin would sound retarded doing that "loud whisper" thing caped avengers are supposed to do when in costume in Nolan's universe.
Besides, Robin would sound retarded doing that "loud whisper" thing caped avengers are supposed to do when in costume in Nolan's universe.
Michael Cera could play a wimpy Robin who's very indecisive. ;)
Michael Cera could play a wimpy Robin who's very indecisive. ;)
Hah! What's next? Chris Evans will play a sarcastic punk?
HAH!
The Dark Knight really wasn't that good...
The Dark Knight really wasn't that good...
Between this and your insane praise of avatar, I now value your opinions on movies. I will do the opposite of what you suggest :)
Few good movies. Lots of eh ones.
But touche.
Batman 3: Raping Dead Horses.
Samsara, to me, the essence of Batman's character (and something of which Nolan in particular is very cognizant) is that he isn't very much less crazy than the maniacs he opposes. Robin lessens that to the point of Batman becoming just another guy in a costume. To me, it is demeaning to the character.
I am not sure how to take that.
But this whole notion of Bruce Wayne not being a father is laughable. All people change over time. So you mean to tell me that Bruce Wayne will always be the same?Not exactly. But he won't be much different, either. That's why, as a comic book character, he has survived so long.
The point of Dick Grayson/Robin is to help mature both Bruce Wayne as a man and Batman, realizing that you can't always handle the darkness alone.But Bruce isn't alone. He already has Alfred, and Commissioner Gordon, and that lady that took him in when he was a kid. Can the point be taken further? Probably, but the best way to do that can't be reckless endangerment of a minor, while forcing that minor to wear day-glo colors.
Again, good discussion, but everyone sort of assumes that Robin is just camp, or not capable as a character of adding to the story in a good way. I will always be firmly against that. If written correctly, he absolutely can do so.If you say so. If that's true, I've never seen him written correctly.
Spoken like a true Robin-hater. :lol:tup
It's all good hef. We'll just agree to disagree.
The only correct way to write Robin's character in that scenario is to have him constantly mocked about his costume by villain, hero, and everyday citizen alike until he eventually snaps and has to be locked up in Arkham, where he has a long time for his pent-up hatred and resentment to fester toward Bruce for making him wear such a silly outfit and be the butt of jokes during his entire adolescence. He comes to view Bruce/Batman as a vicious tormentor, and ultimately escapes to become Batman's prime nemesis and will hatch a plan the likes of which the world has never seen to publicly humiliate and ultimately kill him, but not until after leaving town for two years to study fashion in Paris and come up with a better custume in which to carry out his evil plot.I WOULD WATCH THAT
(https://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a76/wackinov/batman.jpg)Please, if at all possible, no Riddler.I really don't understand the slack that the Riddler gets, but I think it's largely due to Jim Carrey's portrayal of him in Burton's film, which is extremely inaccurate of comic book Riddler. In the comic books he's nothing short of a genius, the Joker has no plan as he stated in the film, whereas the Riddler has a plan that you will most definitely follow because he's always two steps ahead of you. Samsara hit the nail on the head whenever he talked about Batman using his detective skills, something a lot of people don't know about Batman because he's too busy being angry and beating people in the face. That's why they were named DC comics: "Detective Comics" (don't believe me, look it up).
The Riddler is the best contender for the 3rd film, I believe it wholeheartedly.
(https://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9014/batmanz.jpg)
Do they ever actually call it the Batmobile in the Nolan movies?
(https://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9014/batmanz.jpg)
Do they ever actually call it the Batmobile in the Nolan movies?
(https://img684.imageshack.us/img684/9014/batmanz.jpg)
Do they ever actually call it the Batmobile in the Nolan movies?
Is that a real panel from All Star Batman and Robin?
Characters:
What about Harley Quinn?
So even though the answer is probably no, but do you think there's a chance of a Justice League movie eventually?I think the "suits" at Warner Brothers would love one, but Nolan wants no part of it, at least with his versions of Batman and Superman.
You have a well established and much respected Batman right now, Green Lantern is coming out soon and looks like it will be decent at least. They're trying to figure out a new Superman movie. And with all of the hype over the Avengers movie, do you think a Justice League movie might be in the works?
Like I said, the answer is probably no. But it would be interested to say the least.
Oh yea, I forgot he's helping with Superman too. Don't think you think it's a bit more likely with them behind two of the members?AFAIK, they are and always have been behind ALL the DC properties. Warner Bros. owns DC Comics, so they've always had their own studio.
What about a gay porn cross over? Or cross dressing?
But again, Nolan thinks that both Batman and Superman should be independent of all other heroes, no team-ups/crossovers.
But again, Nolan thinks that both Batman and Superman should be independent of all other heroes, no team-ups/crossovers.
I think Warner Brothers should hire Nolan to run all their comic book properties. He seems to be the ONLY PERSON IN THE UNIVERSE OTHER THAN ME who understands that putting more Superheroes in a movie dilutes the quality because different heroes are designed to serve different story-telling purposes and function in universes with different rules.
The best actor portraying a superhero in the past ten years has to go to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns in my opinion.I'd have to go with Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl.
And, am I the only one who finds Christian Bale totally annoying?
Characters:
What about Harley Quinn?
"No. I just don’t feel comfortable talking about it."
The best actor portraying a superhero in the past ten years has to go to Brandon Routh in Superman Returns in my opinion.Really? I thought that, well, everyone else was better than him.
So... there's a rumor that Catwoman is gonna appear in the next film and that Marion Cotillard (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0182839/) AKA 'Mal' from Inception is gonna perform that character.I'm not a big fan of hers, so I'm hoping this isn't true. Plus, I don't really have any interest in Catwoman being in the movie.
wait wat
I love Chris Nolan but his obsession with never making a so-so movie is gonna ruin a franchise that I really want continued, the very classy "only 3 movies cause its a story that will end" thing does not satisfy comic book fans at all, hand over the franchise if you don't wanna be the one that makes the so-so movies -which probably wouldn't be bad except in Nolan's head- but don't condemn it to end.Who said anything about ending a franchise? Only DC Comics could possibly have that power, Nolan certainly doesn't. He's just ending his film series after 3, which seems perfectly sensible. Then let someone start a new series later on, rather than having his Batman universe stretched out and potentially ruined by someone else.
Superhero movie franchises are not meant to end with a story end, they're meant to end when a sequel bums out really bad.
I didn't say TDK was so-sooh right you didnt. my bad :azn:
I love Chris Nolan but his obsession with never making a so-so movie is gonna ruin a franchise that I really want continued, the very classy "only 3 movies cause its a story that will end" thing does not satisfy comic book fans at all, hand over the franchise if you don't wanna be the one that makes the so-so movies -which probably wouldn't be bad except in Nolan's head- but don't condemn it to end.Who said anything about ending a franchise? Only DC Comics could possibly have that power, Nolan certainly doesn't. He's just ending his film series after 3, which seems perfectly sensible. Then let someone start a new series later on, rather than having his Batman universe stretched out and potentially ruined by someone else.
Superhero movie franchises are not meant to end with a story end, they're meant to end when a sequel bums out really bad.
Why is it that Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 sound like normal sequel titles, but Batman 3 sounds horrible?
Why is it that Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 sound like normal sequel titles, but Batman 3 sounds horrible?
Oh god I hope not.
This. This whole 3D trend our cinema is getting back into (just like the 50's...) is becoming more and more a gimmick with every film released.Oh god I hope not.
I really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.Coraline, Up and Toy Story 3.
In before Chino says AvatarI really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.Coraline, Up and Toy Story 3.
I'm not sure if you guys have seen this, but Tom Hardy has been cast as the villain. I really hope he ends up being the Riddler
https://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/112/1128133p1.html
I really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.Coraline, Up and Toy Story 3.
I actually saw that in 2D, so I can't say much. But that movie was very enjoyable regardless of the dimension.I really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.Coraline, Up and Toy Story 3.
How to Train Your Dragon was amazing.
I really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.
I really don't understand the hate for 3D. I know that many films get it for the trend, but a few movies have really been enhanced by it.
It's fucking expensive. Seriously, ticket prices are high enough without having to pay an extra 4 bucks to see it in 3D
You gotta love when a movie about a character that started out as a symbol for american patriotism is now almost entirely british cast.
You gotta love when a movie about a character that started out as a symbol for american patriotism is now almost entirely british cast.
It's the acting I care most about, not where they are from. So far, Nolan's pics are almost flawless. (Katie Holmes withstanding)
So well I barely noticed any true 3D scenes and for most of the movie the picture just looked odd. Give me 2D any day.This. 3D is a gimmick, and people will get bored of it eventually. Every film I've seen in 3D I've also eventually seen in 2D and my enjoyment has never been any lower. For most I actually preferred it in 2D because 1) I don't have to wear those uncomfortable glasses, and 2) the film looks more colourful and vibrant.
Michael Caine
Gary Oldman
Christian Bale
Cilian Murphy
Heath Ledger
Liam Neeson
Tom Hardy
Tom Wilkinson
Official title announced: The Dark Knight Rises
Eh....I would've preferred Gotham City or something along those lines.
Oh, and no Riddler, either...
I don't like the title.It's better than the Transformer 3 title.
I don't like the title.It's better than the Transformer 3 title.
The Dark of the Moon.I don't like the title.It's better than the Transformer 3 title.
what is it? revenge of megan fox's bent over ass?
The Dark of the Moon.I don't like the title.It's better than the Transformer 3 title.
what is it? revenge of megan fox's bent over ass?
The Dark of the Moon.I don't like the title.It's better than the Transformer 3 title.
what is it? revenge of megan fox's bent over ass?
Yeah but who cares about Transbayers 3? This is Chris Nolan's third Batman movie. He already had The Dark Knight as the last title. The Dark Knight Rises is very uncreative and unoriginal.
Yeah cause that's clearly what I was getting at.
I would have preferred 'Batman ________' as it finishes off the trilogy.
Batman Descends was my personal choice.
Ah well. Doesnt really matter when you think about it. The whole Batman franchise is massively overrated anyway. I much prefer Nolan's other work.
Ariich, it's uncreative because The Dark Knight is used twice now. It just seems more redundant than having Batman as the title for a bunch of movies. Besides, with 2 movies in, he has risen up already."The Dark Knight" was used in the comics, so that wasn't creative. "Batman Begins" is hardly creative for a film about Batman's beginnings.
I would've liked "Batman Crusader" as the title. I just think it's a badass title and it would've finished it off nicely.I like this title a lot.
It's fucking expensive. Seriously, ticket prices are high enough without having to pay an extra 4 bucks to see it in 3DSo you can't skip ONE coffee (out of 4 per day) or some cigarettes ONCE a month to go see a 3D movie?
I just hope the 3rd one ends up being as good as Batman Begins. The Dark Knight received all the attention and had various parts that were better than Batman Begins, but it was a bit of a letdown as a whole.
I just hope the 3rd one ends up being as good as Batman Begins. The Dark Knight received all the attention and had various parts that were better than Batman Begins, but it was a bit of a letdown as a whole.
I agree.
I've always considered Batman Begins the better film.
TDK was good but I think the obsession over the Joker is what made it so popular. I also didn't like how they rushed the Two-Face storyline. I would have introduced Harvey Dent in TKD, and used him as Two-Face in the final film. I always found that to be a mistake by Nolan, yet not many people seem to pick up on it.
The whole phone-bugging thing was a letdown as well. I expected more of a climax with the Joker than what we got.
Still, it's a solid enough film. But Begins is better in almost ever way, IMO.
The last part of the movie moves too fast, but it's still fantastic.
Yes, the fact that you dislike it makes it objectively bad, and the rest of us are just "overlooking" it. :P
The last part of the movie moves too fast, but it's still fantastic.
It was more of the tone of the last sentence, like you can't believe how stupid we all are for "refusing" to see how bad the last quarter is. Posting IMO wouldn't change the fact that you sounded incredibly condescending.
You could just leave out the "overlook" comment, because that isn't implying anything, it is a basic insult to everyone's intelligence who doesn't view the film the same way that you do.
IMO
I never found Harvey's change to Two face to be that unbelievable. On the surface it's quite sudden, but there's numerous scenes throughout the movie where you see just how close to snapping he is, even without anything truly traumatic happening to him.
Batman Begins is a great movie with a great atmosphere and a well-executed plot. The Dark Knight has a great atmosphere, but the thematic elements are nowhere near as strong, and it meanders on long enough for the entire plot to fall apart. Also, the way the handled Dent was terrible. It all happens way to quick, and everything from his look to his actual time spent as Two-Face is extremely poorly done. I still am baffled about why so many people like the last quarter of the movie.That way, those of us that like it can explain why we do. Whereas the wording you chose was attacking, making us defend why we have supposedly "overlooked" such obvious flaws.
I'd give Begins an 8 and TDK a 7. +
I'd like to see Liam Neeson come back as a 2nd villian (not the main)
But is Ra's Al Ghul immortal...
Has potential.
Can we talk about the Tumbler for a second? I have a debate with a friend that the Tumbler is not the Batmobile, nor was never considered the Batmobile. That it was just the Tumbler, and was used for Batman's convenience as he started to become a crime fighter
Anyone who doesn't like TDK is um... :loser:
Sorry, but that film is a masterpiece. It's the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of comic book movies. Not enough good things can be said about it. The amount of depth and underlining themes throughout is astonishing.
Anyone who doesn't like TDK is um... :loser:
Sorry, but that film is a masterpiece. It's the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of comic book movies. Not enough good things can be said about it. The amount of depth and underlining themes throughout is astonishing.
YES!
That I'll agree with. Gary Oldman is excellent in a sea of actors trying too hard (Ledger) or not trying at all (Bale). My problem with Dent's arc is that, while the acting is well done, there's not much of an "arc". His story ends just as its getting interesting. I won't press this any further, though, as obviously people have had enough ;D
I'd like to see Liam Neeson come back as a 2nd villian (not the main)
But is Ra's Al Ghul immortal...
Has potential.
Has potential to be crap.
Nolan did say he wants to keep the as realistic as possible.
No. He made the character his own, but not in a good way. Not gonna get into a whole Joker debate though. Let's just say I like Burton's Batman better and leave it at that.
No. He made the character his own, but not in a good way. Not gonna get into a whole Joker debate though. Let's just say I like Burton's Batman better and leave it at that.
Its "cool" to like The Dark Knight because it just so happens a LOT of people liked the movie. Same reason why its cool to like Lady Gaga, there are a LOT of people who like her music.
No. He made the character his own, but not in a good way. Not gonna get into a whole Joker debate though. Let's just say I like Burton's Batman better and leave it at that.
Same here.
No. He made the character his own, but not in a good way. Not gonna get into a whole Joker debate though. Let's just say I like Burton's Batman better and leave it at that.
but you have to understand if you say something like "I don't want to have this debate again" only to bring up the debate in the first place, you are basically asking for a debate to start.
Okay, then here: Ledger isn't playing the Joker. He's playing some kind of drug addict. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not "the Joker." It's Nolan applying his "it has to be realistic" aesthetic to a comic book character by turning said character into a what I've described above. It's NOT that interesting to me, not compared to the job Jack Nicholson did. Then again, Burtan's Batman was a comic-book movie, and Nolan's is NOT a comic book movie but a movie based on a comic book that tries to deny its roots at every chance. So there.
He's like a combo of Alan More and Frank Miller (both non-canonical) interpretations.
And, while those are popular writers for the "I usually don't read comics but..." crowd, they've also got their fare share of detractors. Not that I care enough about that whole debate to get involved.
(https://radified.com/gfx4/cannon2.jpg)He's like a combo of Alan More and Frank Miller (both non-canonical) interpretations.
And, while those are popular writers for the "I usually don't read comics but..." crowd, they've also got their fare share of detractors. Not that I care enough about that whole debate to get involved.
I actually can see your point. I don't feel this way about Batman. But like Star Trek, I have major problems when things break cannon in Star Trek and have a hard time getting passed the principle of it.
The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises. The Dark Knight Brushes His Teeth. The Dark Knight Gets Dressed. The Dark Knight Eats Breakfast. The Dark Knight Goes To School.
I'm actually very happy that they aren't doing it in 3d. That fad needs to dieIt's no fad.
Okay, then here: Ledger isn't playing the Joker. He's playing some kind of drug addict. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not "the Joker." It's Nolan applying his "it has to be realistic" aesthetic to a comic book character by turning said character into a what I've described above. It's NOT that interesting to me, not compared to the job Jack Nicholson did. Then again, Burtan's Batman was a comic-book movie, and Nolan's is NOT a comic book movie but a movie based on a comic book that tries to deny its roots at every chance. So there.I loved when Tim Burton told Kevin Smith he never read any comic books. Kevin's response? "That explains Batman."
I actually haven't seen Batman Returns. If that's true, wow. :facepalm:This is one of his "killing scenes."
wut?
I'm actually very happy that they aren't doing it in 3d. That fad needs to dieIt's no fad.
Lots of people can IMITATE Ledger's joker, sure. But could any of those same people come up with the Joker without any prior influence, even without reading the comic books? That takes some kind of skill.
Okay, then here: Ledger isn't playing the Joker. He's playing some kind of drug addict. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not "the Joker." It's Nolan applying his "it has to be realistic" aesthetic to a comic book character by turning said character into a what I've described above. It's NOT that interesting to me, not compared to the job Jack Nicholson did. Then again, Burtan's Batman was a comic-book movie, and Nolan's is NOT a comic book movie but a movie based on a comic book that tries to deny its roots at every chance. So there.I loved when Tim Burton told Kevin Smith he never read any comic books. Kevin's response? "That explains Batman."
I watched Batman Returns recently, and I was appalled by how many people Batman killed without hesitance.
Hey, I'm in favour of Directors choosing to film only in IMAX or whatever the HD thing is instead of 3D. My concern is that since the demand is getting higher and higher for these 3D popcorn movies that it won't stop, no matter what some brilliant directors say. Those like Cameron still want to push 3D movies to try and make a great movie with well blend 3D images, all of this to prove: "see? it is (instead of a 'it can be') a great complementary if done right. MOVIES ARE NOW RE-RE-REVOLUTIONIZED!" As long as there is a great demand of viewers wanting to see movies in 3D and directors wanting to film it that way, I'm sorry, it's no fad. Sadly.With the advent of really high name directors completely trashing and refusing to use it, I'd say it is. And I'm talking directors with a vision is various aspects of film making. As much as I hate Michael Bay's popcorn-only technique the man knows how to shoot really "holy shit" shots and his thoughts on 3D cover just as much ground as Nolan's do. Is anyone even using 3D well outside of Cameron? I'm not talking people like Paul W.S. Anderson who love it just as an excuse to throw axes and bullets at the audience.I'm actually very happy that they aren't doing it in 3d. That fad needs to dieIt's no fad.
It's only not a fad if the demand keeps up for the long run.That's where I was going at.
Okay, then here: Ledger isn't playing the Joker. He's playing some kind of drug addict. Sure, it's realistic, but it's not "the Joker." It's Nolan applying his "it has to be realistic" aesthetic to a comic book character by turning said character into a what I've described above. It's NOT that interesting to me, not compared to the job Jack Nicholson did. Then again, Burtan's Batman was a comic-book movie, and Nolan's is NOT a comic book movie but a movie based on a comic book that tries to deny its roots at every chance. So there.I kind of see where you're coming from here.
Hey, I'm in favour of Directors choosing to film only in IMAX or whatever the HD thing is instead of 3D. My concern is that since the demand is getting higher and higher for these 3D popcorn movies that it won't stop, no matter what some brilliant directors say. Those like Cameron still want to push 3D movies to try and make a great movie with well blend 3D images, all of this to prove: "see? it is (instead of a 'it can be') a great complementary if done right. MOVIES ARE NOW RE-RE-REVOLUTIONIZED!" As long as there is a great demand of viewers wanting to see movies in 3D and directors wanting to film it that way, I'm sorry, it's no fad. Sadly.With the advent of really high name directors completely trashing and refusing to use it, I'd say it is. And I'm talking directors with a vision is various aspects of film making. As much as I hate Michael Bay's popcorn-only technique the man knows how to shoot really "holy shit" shots and his thoughts on 3D cover just as much ground as Nolan's do. Is anyone even using 3D well outside of Cameron? I'm not talking people like Paul W.S. Anderson who love it just as an excuse to throw axes and bullets at the audience.I'm actually very happy that they aren't doing it in 3d. That fad needs to dieIt's no fad.
I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.
No. No serious drama has used it, and I don't think a serious movie will use it for some time.
But then again, even if you're a follower of the franchise, it doesn't mean you'll want the same tone and mood over and over again. I'd seen all the old Batman films but hadn't read the comics, so I'm not really that much of a follower, but I always love it when something new is tried. To me it's like covering a song in a different style; it's not the same as the original but if it's done well then it'll have lots to enjoy in a different way.Oh! Totally true. And I imagine a hell of a lot of Batman fans really dig The Dark Knight. Think it's not necessarily as much a "given" as it might seem, though, so I'm just saying I can completely understand why it wouldn't necessarily tick all the right boxes for someone with a bit of extra investment. Quite a few people seemed to be baffled by PC's reaction - and understandably so, it's an ace film - but I think I can see his angle.
It looks shit to people who do have depth perception, that's the problem.I was looking at apple's trailers, and six of the ones on the front page boasted 3D movies. Ugh.No. No serious drama has used it, and I don't think a serious movie will use it for some time.
Exactly. Anyone who thinks a serious movie could be as effective in 3D is a moron.
Also Chino, your beloved Avatar has seriously crippled artistic integrity by showing how much extra money studios can make with those 3D prices. That is by far the sole reason so many movies are being made in 3D and unnecessarily converted into 3D post production.
Except for his claim that Ledger was overacting. Is there something wrong with giving a new spin on an old character? I'm pretty sure there are so many different visions of the Joker that saying his "wasn't the Joker" is kinda silly.Ledger was definitely firing on all cylinders. I could see how someone could call that overacting. I disagree completely, Ledger's Joker was the best thing about a stunning film. From what I know of the Joker, as well, I think Heath was probably significantly less zany than most of the previous renditions, too, so I agree that it's an odd claim.
I can understand how music in a scene might take away from the impact compared to what silence might have done, but how does it in any way affect the "acting potential?"
I seriously cannot even fathom when people say Heath Ledger didn't have a great performance. He was able to completely transform himself. Jack Nicholson just played Jack Nicholson.
Suprisingly, however, The Joker doesn't qualify for this type of dialogue. He had some good lines in the film, and was much better overall to the horrible transition of Harvey into Two Face. I also think the actor just wasn't good enough for this role. But I guess Nolan is partly to blame for that.
I thought he was referring to Aaron Eckhart not being good enough for the role. I disagree either way.Whoops. I think I misread somehow. But yeah, I still disagree. I think everyone performed near perfect (except for Bale)
I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.I will take that bet, because there's no way in hell it'll happen.
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=12971.msg651895#msg651895Quoting yourself, and showing your quote, would've been easier.
Out of all the garbage I've dumbed in this thread, I've decided that post is the single reason why I like Burton's movie better.
PC, it doesn't sound to me like you're even able to appreciate TDK for what it is, because you are holding up Tim Burton's deeply flawed film as what a Batman and a Joker should be on film. I have no idea why, but that is what all of your posts on the subject are screaming to me.
I was a longtime comics reader already by the time Burton's film came out in 1989, and I thought it was a huge missed opportunity. It just wasn't the comics. At all. It was just wrong, and it was painfully obvious, as Kevin Smith noted, that Burton was not familiar with the comics.
I have no idea why anyone would prefer Nicholson's Joker to Ledger's Joker. Nicholson wasn't creating anything, he was just Jack playing Crazy Jack again, but this time with face paint. Also, it had a lot more to in common with Caesar Romero's version from the camp TV show than anything in the comics. Also, I have no idea why you said that Ledger's Joker was a drug addict. Just completely clueless on that one.
But again, no one saying anything is going to change what you like or dislike. So, cheers.
(Bank robbery scene)
'Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr' (for like 10 minutes straight)
This is COMPLETELY random, but I vote for Blackmask and Harley Quinn for the villains of TDKR
Batman Begins - Ra's Al Ghul/Scarecrow
The Dark Knight - The Joker/Two-Face
The Dark Knight Rises - Blackmask/Harley Quinn
.....to me, it fits!
I am willing to bet someone twenty dollars via pay pal that 5 years from now every movie will be in 3D on the big screen... with no 2D option.I read an article a while back (sorry, can't find the link) that showed pretty convincingly that demand for 3D movies is going down except for one category of movie. The only place 3D movies are doing very well is movies with "3D" in the title (who wants to see Saw 3D in 2D?). Basically he calculated the % increase in revenue due to the 3D showings for all 3D movies since the most recent trend started. Basically he took the number of tickets sold, determined how much money the movie would have made based on average 2D ticket prices, and determined the % increase due to the 3D premium. One of the first, Polar Express, made a ton extra from being in 3D. Some of the more recent ones, like The Last Airbender, likely would have made more money had it not been in 3D at all as more people would have been willing to pay the lowere 2D price to see, but weren't willing to pay extra for 3D. The basic point of the article was that people are already realizing it's not worth the extra $ in most cases to pay for 3D. Even Avatar, considered by many to be the best use of 3D, had a smaller boost from the 3D showings than some 3D movies before it.
You like that fan art?
I just watched The Dark Knight again and it reinstated my belief that it is the greatest comic book film of all time. The story is so deep and intense and the script is so well-written that it's almost NOT a comic book film. Good stuff.
I just watched The Dark Knight again and it reinstated my belief that it is the greatest comic book film of all time. The story is so deep and intense and the script is so well-written that it's almost NOT a comic book film. Good stuff.
Yes, but lots of people liked it, so it's not as good.
I just watched The Dark Knight again and it reinstated my belief that it is the greatest comic book film of all time. The story is so deep and intense and the script is so well-written that it's almost NOT a comic book film. Good stuff.
I just watched The Dark Knight again and it reinstated my belief that it is the greatest comic book film of all time. The story is so deep and intense and the script is so well-written that it's almost NOT a comic book film. Good stuff.
I prefer Begins, for the comments I made earlier.
But TDK is still a good film.
I would consider V For Vendetta the best comic book adaptation. The script is a lot better than any Nolan version of Batman, IMO.
It would have been better if it wasn't awful.
It would have been better if it wasn't awful.
It wasn't awful at all. It was just super rushed. It could have been a great trilogy. But as it was, we barely had to care about any characters outside of "hey, that guy is fighting for justice.....and he throws knives, I like him!".
It would have been better if it wasn't awful.
It wasn't awful at all. It was just super rushed. It could have been a great trilogy. But as it was, we barely had to care about any characters outside of "hey, that guy is fighting for justice.....and he throws knives, I like him!".
It would have been better if it wasn't awful.
It wasn't awful at all. It was just super rushed. It could have been a great trilogy. But as it was, we barely had to care about any characters outside of "hey, that guy is fighting for justice.....and he throws knives, I like him!".
It's not perfect, sure. I didn't like the ending.
But the script is pretty damn good, and considerably better than some of the forced dialogue used in TDK.
It would have been better if it wasn't awful.
It wasn't awful at all. It was just super rushed. It could have been a great trilogy. But as it was, we barely had to care about any characters outside of "hey, that guy is fighting for justice.....and he throws knives, I like him!".
It's not perfect, sure. I didn't like the ending.
But the script is pretty damn good, and considerably better than some of the forced dialogue used in TDK.
Almost everything V said was forced. That was the point, he wasn't a person, he was the embodiment of an idea and an ideal. But it was VERY forced. Like the whole speech with V words? Yea, that seemed naturally flowing.
Also, the movie would have been better with Keira Knightly or someone BRITISH and not Natalie Portman doing a bad accent.
I wouldn't exactly call it intelligent either. Maybe when you compare it to 300.
I wouldn't exactly call it intelligent either. Maybe when you compare it to 300.
Nah dude, it's about the message. 300 is just plain......pointless.
And Adami, point taken.
I wouldn't exactly call it intelligent either. Maybe when you compare it to 300.
Nah dude, it's about the message. 300 is just plain......pointless.
And Adami, point taken.
300 wasn't pointless. It had a point. A huge point. An 8 inch point that found its ways to the each of the cast memebers rectums.
Nah, I didn't care about any of the fighting scenes. If I want a film from that period I'll watch Spartacus. The real one.
Nathalie Portman was great in V, and her accent was... adequate. Keira Knightly is rubbish so definitely shouldn't have been in it!
V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
That's pretty much the Tea Party.
V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
Pretty much. It is a great movie though. Happy November Fifth, everybody!
Cheers. I just nearly caught pneumonia trying to light some fireworks in the rain.V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
Pretty much. It is a great movie though. Happy November Fifth, everybody!
Cheers. I just nearly caught pneumonia trying to light some fireworks in the rain.V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
Pretty much. It is a great movie though. Happy November Fifth, everybody!
Well. Watching fireworks being lit, while I held an umbrella feebly over the box.
Cheers. I just nearly caught pneumonia trying to light some fireworks in the rain.V For Vendetta is a great film, soooo deep! I don't like it as much as TDK though. I don't find anything rushed or forced about either films.
It's not deep. "The government has become over controlling and the people have to revolt"
Pretty much. It is a great movie though. Happy November Fifth, everybody!
Well. Watching fireworks being lit, while I held an umbrella feebly over the box.
You're a beacon of inspiration. Like V, but X because X is a more awesome letter.
This just in, Rob joins the elite club of now black men, joining the current members Volk, Accelerando (Sp?) and Millah.
This just in, Rob joins the elite club of now black men, joining the current members Volk, Accelerando (Sp?) and Millah.
But Volk isn't really Black.
This just in, Rob joins the elite club of now black men, joining the current members Volk, Accelerando (Sp?) and Millah.
But Volk isn't really Black.
This just in, Rob joins the elite club of now black men, joining the current members Volk, Accelerando (Sp?) and Millah.
But Volk isn't really Black.
He's superficially black. He has a white girlfriend, that makes him black enough.
This just in, Rob joins the elite club of now black men, joining the current members Volk, Accelerando (Sp?) and Millah.
But Volk isn't really Black.
He's superficially black. He has a white girlfriend, that makes him black enough.
He's superficially AND genetically black..... :huh:
The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight Rises. The Dark Knight Brushes His Teeth. The Dark Knight Gets Dressed. The Dark Knight Eats Breakfast. The Dark Knight Goes To School.
:metal I'd see all of those! :samsara:
I have come to a conclusion that the only good thing to come out of Schumacher's Batman films is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMD2TwRvuoU
I liked Batman Forever, sans the nipples.
Chris Nolan is lining up actresses he'll meet for two female lead roles in The Dark Knight Rises, the third installment of the Batfranchise which Warner Bros has dated release on July 20, 2012. I'm told one of the roles is a love interest for Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne, and the other is a villain. The actresses are: Rachel Weisz, Naomi Watts, Blake Lively, Natalie Portman, Anne Hathaway and Keira Knightley. Nolan is keeping the roles under wraps, just the way that he did when he drafted his Inception star Tom Hardy to come aboard to likely play a villain. Deadline broke that story October 13. I'm still not sure what the role is and I believe Hardy took the job without knowing or reading a script that's still being tweaked.
natalie portman for harley quinn!
Nolan's casting of female roles has been one of the weak points of his first two Batman films. Hopefully he gets it right this time.I think Maggie Gyllenhal was great in TDK. Not the biggest selling point, but she wasn't bad like Katie Holmes was.
I want Poison Ivy!
planet fetish.
planet smasher.
planet smasher.
SMAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSHEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Well, that settles that, then. Warner Bros. has just announced that Anne Hathaway has won the race to star in The Dark Knight Rises... as Selina Kyle. Also known as Catwoman. “I am thrilled to have the opportunity to work with Anne Hathaway, who will be a fantastic addition to our ensemble as we complete our story," said director Christopher Nolan in a press release.
And, in the same release, WB and Christopher Nolan confirmed that the role Tom Hardy will play in the eagerly-awaited Batman threequel is Bane, the muscle-bound super-steroidal freak who, in the comics, once broke Batman's back. “I am delighted to be working with Tom again and excited to watch him bring to life our new interpretation of one of Batman’s most formidable enemies.”
This represents a flood of information for a Christopher Nolan Bat-movie, and gives us plenty to chew on. We can't wait to see Nolan's take on the twisted relationship between Batman and the capricious Cat - and Hathaway certainly has the chops, and the curves, to fill out the catsuit. Intriguingly, Catwoman isn't mentioned in the WB press release, but with Nolan openly admitting that this is the end of his Bat-tale, it's hard to imagine that Kyle won't become Catwoman at some point in the film.
Still, heck of a year for Hathaway, what with this and her gig hosting the Oscars...
Bane is more interesting. Once again, Nolan is going down the multiple villains route - as he did with Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins, and The Joker and Two-Face in The Dark Knight. But we're intrigued by what he and the magnificent Hardy will bring to the role of Bane, a character who could be laughable in the wrong hands (see Batman & Robin for proof). Will this Bane be more cerebral than the grunting hulk of the comics? Would that be enough to pique Hardy's interest in the role? Or will he represent the first very real physical threat to Christian Bale's Bat in the trilogy?
So, what do you think? Happy with these choices? Has the Caped Crusader got enough on his plate with Catwoman and Bane to contend with, or does Nolan have another villainous surprise up his sleeve?
I never found Catwoman interesting at all beyond her flirtations with Batman, so I'm interested to see what Nolan does with her. Tom Hardy as Bane is such a huge whatthefuck, but so was Ledger. Overall, still psyched.
Pardon my terrible ignorance, but is Catwoman a villain in the Batman universe? I have no idea.Well, it depends on the story really. Sometimes she's a villain, sometimes an antihero. The only constant is the weird romantic relationship she and Bruce Wayne have.
To be fair, she was cast as Selena Kyle. It's possible that "catwoman" won't have a major role.True, but seeing as Nolan has stated that this is his last Batman movie, I would think she would turn into Catwoman at some point.
I'm surprised, but still very psyched about it.
So are these two the villains for the movie? If they are the only ones (though Catwoman isnt necessarily a "villain"), its kind of weak in my opinion. I think they need one more "lead villain" that poses somewhat more of a threat to batwoman. I just dont see Bane and Catwoman as a huge threat.Now that's a big twist to the story.
I like that every time Nolan cast an actor or actress(except for Mrs. Cruise) I've given the old, "That is an odd choice" but have been blown away with their acting in the movies so again, I'm betting on greatness.
If I read the internet correctly, Bane in the comics was a super strong super genius who found out Batman's identity and broke his back. That would be a pretty hardcore direction for the movies to go. But it's the Nolan Batman, so I expect it to open new territory.
I'm quite skeptical of the Bane thing, but maybe it's because I still picture the utterly ridiculous and mentally retarded Bane from Batman and Robin. And I'm expecting a lot of Nolan's version of Catwoman.
Well it will be the first live action batman film to kill him, so I'd be happy with that.
If I read the internet correctly, Bane in the comics was a super strong super genius who found out Batman's identity and broke his back. That would be a pretty hardcore direction for the movies to go. But it's the Nolan Batman, so I expect it to open new territory.
Given that Nolan is only doing three, maybe he'll have Bane kill Batman. Seriously.
Pardon my terrible ignorance, but is Catwoman a villain in the Batman universe? I have no idea.Well, it depends on the story really. Sometimes she's a villain, sometimes an antihero. The only constant is the weird romantic relationship she and Bruce Wayne have.
To be fair, she was cast as Selena Kyle. It's possible that "catwoman" won't have a major role.
Pardon my terrible ignorance, but is Catwoman a villain in the Batman universe? I have no idea.Well, it depends on the story really. Sometimes she's a villain, sometimes an antihero. The only constant is the weird romantic relationship she and Bruce Wayne have.
Yeah, don't feel bad about being confused about the goings on in the DC Universe. Batman was dead, but he wasn't really, he was just sent back in time...It's confusing as hell.
Wait, rebooting Batman after Nolan is done?
If I read the internet correctly, Bane in the comics was a super strong super genius who found out Batman's identity and broke his back. That would be a pretty hardcore direction for the movies to go. But it's the Nolan Batman, so I expect it to open new territory.
Given that Nolan is only doing three, maybe he'll have Bane kill Batman. Seriously.
Nah, that won't happen. Neither will this follow the story arc of the comics where Batman is "broken" (literally) by Bane.
Maybe you should use that money to upgrade to Pro instead so I don't have to look at that ugly Bandwidth Exceeded sig, buddy |: |
Maybe you should use that money to upgrade to Pro instead so I don't have to look at that ugly Bandwidth Exceeded sig, buddy |: |OH SNAP! (like Batman's spine)
If they actually did Batman's getting paralyzed, Imagine who would play Jason Todd. Who could pull of playing insane?
No, that's actually his signature. He works for Photobucket.Maybe you should use that money to upgrade to Pro instead so I don't have to look at that ugly Bandwidth Exceeded sig, buddy |: |
BöskUno, you just got photowned!
Wait, rebooting Batman after Nolan is done?
Maybe he meant the comics.
Nah, I think he's talking about a reboot of DC canon, like what "Crisis on Infinite Earths" did.
Hey folks, Harry here... in my Hospital bed, watching the misery that is the Golden Globes... BEE GEES Christian Bale just won for THE FIGHTER - and as I was watching this, I got an email with the following:
Just seen this interview with Darren Aronofsky pop up on Google News. He mentions that his old script is being made in to a comic, before letting slip that "we're going to do a comic book version first and see what happens...".
Very interesting. The full quote -
CoF: Speaking of which, you’ve worked in the comic-book medium before, with your adaptation of The Fountain (2006), and the tie-in book to Pi. Do you ever feel like realising your vision of something like the Batman story that you were working on as a comic book?
DA: Well, we’re actually doing one. It hasn’t really been announced, I don’t know if I should give you the scoop! But we’re getting there. We’re doing a comic book of a script that’s really hard to make and we’re going to do a comic version first and see what happens…
https://clothesonfilm.com/black-swan-interview-with-darren-aronofsky/18472/
Thanks,
Joanna
That's cool. For one, we'd get to finally see what Aronofsky's vision for BATMAN would be, at least in comic form, but then... the fact that Darren is going to blow everyone's minds with his WOLVERINE, he'll have the mega-success (yes, I believe in Aronofsky this much) that there could very well be a possibility of him tacking BATMAN.... At least, that's pretty much what he's hinting at here. Excuse me, it's time for more pain medicine... damn this smarts... Actually, it's pretty insane to be on pain meds talking about Aronofsky... but there's no way I could type if I weren't... but I'm so gonna get in that Red Dress!
Darren Aranofsky doing comic book movies (big titles, not ones I've never heard of) would be the greatest thing.
As far as I'm concerned he can write/direct every movie ever to be made from now on.
Honestly, I thought she did a good job.Really agree with you here. And it's one of the reasons I prefer Begins to TDK.
I just realized something too. The two Batman movies feel somewhat disconnected. In actuality, there's no continuity issues or anything. But they show very different worlds. The Gotham of Batman Begins is seedy, run down, a bunch of alleys, and a messed up island containing Arkham. The Gotham of The Dark Knight is epic in scope, including an intentional use of more daylight shots. Batman does less stealthy fighting in the sequel. The Wayne family's elevated subway is never mentioned again. We see far less Bruce Wayne. His house was even destroyed.
The actress change makes them feel unrelated in a much more tangible way. Dawes had a close emotional tie with Bruce and thus was a major part of the story's emotional fabric, arguably the most important part of the movie. It creates a fundamental emotional disconnect which de-links the films.
If they actually did Batman's getting paralyzed, Imagine who would play Jason Todd. Who could pull of playing insane?
I have a feeling Jason Todd won't have anything to do with this.
But a movie with him would be cool. Ben Foster could do it.
Wait, rebooting Batman after Nolan is done?
Maybe he meant the comics.
Damn. You are right. I forgot about Dick Grayson. It's been 20 yrears(?). Still a great storyline.If they actually did Batman's getting paralyzed, Imagine who would play Jason Todd. Who could pull of playing insane?
I have a feeling Jason Todd won't have anything to do with this.
But a movie with him would be cool. Ben Foster could do it.
And not to be a nerd, but Jason Todd has nothing to do with the Knightfall story arc. It's Dick Grayson as Nightwing that takes up the Batman mantle in his place. And since Nolan has said he'll never use Robin's character, it's doubtful it will go down that path.
Darren Aranofsky was rumored to be doing a Batman: Year One movie.
I dunno, Maggie is pretty hot.Yes, but this:
I dunno, Maggie is pretty hot.But not as hot as Anne.
I don't find Maggie particularly attractive at all (as far as actresses go, anyway). I never did care for that casting choice.I dunno, Maggie is pretty hot.But not as hot as Anne.
(https://i.imgur.com/4lbw3.jpg)
I dunno, Maggie is pretty hot.
@CountVoorhees: Love the Denise Milani banner.Thanks, made it myself.
NOT EVEN CLOSE!!I dunno, Maggie is pretty hot.But not as hot as Anne.
What? No. I've always found it funny how whenever someone doesn't find a female celebrity instantly attractive they immediately drop them to bottom of the barrel status.
I don't think Hathaway, Holmes, or Gyllenhall are "hot." They are all certainly pretty, and more or less talented actresses, but I'm not gaga over any of them.
Well, this is one of the cases where the XXX-parody doesn't need to change name. :biggrin:
The Dark Knight Rises has reportedly added another Oscar winner to its cast (after Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman).
Batman-on-Film first pointed out this article at Le Figaro that claims Marion Cotillard has been cast as the second female lead in the Bat-threequel and will shoot her scenes this summer.
The Hollywood Reporter has now confirmed this with the actress' reps, who said Cotillard is "in discussions" to join the film and is currently discussing scheduling issues. Cotillard is pregnant, but she's due this spring so it's possible she could be back to work by summer.
"The plan is for Cotillard to start shooting mid-June in London, film all summer in L.A. and Pittsburgh and wrap mid-November in New York," according to THR.
While Cotillard's role isn't specified, both BoF and THR speculate that she'll most likely play Talia Al Ghul. Liam Neeson played her father Ra's in Batman Begins.
Cotillard, who also starred in Bat-director Christopher Nolan's Inception, was previously linked with the role of Catwoman, a part that ultimately went to Anne Hathaway.
Meh. I've never really cared for Cotillard.
Ah, I see Nolan's going the whole Joss Whedon route with his hiring practices. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all.Nolan has always done that.
I hadn't seen that before. They're excellent.
Yeah, that's a shoop.You can tell from the pixels?
Didn't really look that closely, I had just seen the original.Yeah, that's a shoop.You can tell from the pixels?
Chris Nolan has been keeping security around his third Batman movie pretty airtight over the past few months.
But he may have overlooked a breach somewhere, as one online source is claiming that it’s gotten its hands on the (very basic-sounding) plot for The Dark Knight Rises.
Batman-On-Film report that the threequel's plot follows Batman’s fight against the League of Shadows, the vigilante organisation spearheaded by Talia al Ghul, who has Bane (Tom Hardy) as her love interest protector.
According to BOF, Joseph Gordon-Levitt will play a member of the League, while Catwoman (Anne Hathaway) will join forces with Batman to fight the organisation at the film's close.
BOF have given no source for their information, with a basic “we know because we just do” post on their Facebook page.
Despite our reservations about these things, the plot does sound pretty legit – especially when you consider the League originally showed up in Batman Begins, which would give Rises a very trilogy-esque dove-tail closer.
how do you gather 4 villians? the Talia as the main villian, Bane as her bodyguard. Gordon Levitt is just a henchman.
I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
When?I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
The hospital scene.When?I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
I think ariich's implying Two-Face "didn't work" in TDK.The hospital scene.When?I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
I don't think that's what ariich is saying at all. I think he's just baffled by emin saying Two-Face was introduced in the last quarter of the movie. He wasn't. One of the major story arcs thoughout the entire film was his stransformation into 2F. The fact that the transformation didn't happen until the end doesn't somehow equate to him appearing out of nowhere. Significant time was spent from the very beginning developing the story that would enable his transformation.This. The character is Harvey Dent, who is in the whole film. Just because his character development leads to him becoming Two Face at the end doesn't mean the villain just came out of nowhere.
I'll come right out and say that it didn't work. But I'm in the minority.I think ariich's implying Two-Face "didn't work" in TDK.The hospital scene.When?I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
I'll come right out and say that it didn't work. But I'm in the minority.I think ariich's implying Two-Face "didn't work" in TDK.The hospital scene.When?I don't buy it. That plot implies four main villains, which is too many characters.I don't know, this is a guy who introduced a second major villain in the last quarter of the movie and made it work.
It's also fake.
(https://ui04.gamespot.com/2339/catwomancv51_2.jpg)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is confirmed to play Alberto Falcone, son of Carmine Falcone..........goddammit, my excitement is building soooooo much for this film!!!!!
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is confirmed to play Alberto Falcone, son of Carmine Falcone..........goddammit, my excitement is building soooooo much for this film!!!!!So pumped!
That is pure awesome.It's also fake.
(https://ui04.gamespot.com/2339/catwomancv51_2.jpg)
https://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Numbers
I don't think that's what ariich is saying at all. I think he's just baffled by emin saying Two-Face was introduced in the last quarter of the movie. He wasn't. One of the major story arcs thoughout the entire film was his stransformation into 2F. The fact that the transformation didn't happen until the end doesn't somehow equate to him appearing out of nowhere. Significant time was spent from the very beginning developing the story that would enable his transformation.Did Two-Face appeared in the Hospital scene, yes or no? Was he there before that scene? Why do you try to make things so complicated? Your last sentence, I don't agree.
I don't think that's what ariich is saying at all. I think he's just baffled by emin saying Two-Face was introduced in the last quarter of the movie. He wasn't. One of the major story arcs thoughout the entire film was his stransformation into 2F. The fact that the transformation didn't happen until the end doesn't somehow equate to him appearing out of nowhere. Significant time was spent from the very beginning developing the story that would enable his transformation.Did Two-Face appeared in the Hospital scene, yes or no? Was he there before that scene? Why do you try to make things so complicated? Your last sentence, I don't agree.
Yep, I've always thought that The Dark Knight was basically the story of how Harvey Dent became Two-Face.I don't think that's what ariich is saying at all. I think he's just baffled by emin saying Two-Face was introduced in the last quarter of the movie. He wasn't. One of the major story arcs thoughout the entire film was his stransformation into 2F. The fact that the transformation didn't happen until the end doesn't somehow equate to him appearing out of nowhere. Significant time was spent from the very beginning developing the story that would enable his transformation.Did Two-Face appeared in the Hospital scene, yes or no? Was he there before that scene? Why do you try to make things so complicated? Your last sentence, I don't agree.
You're not understanding bosk's post. Harvey Dent is Two-Face. Harvey Dent appears within the first 15-20 minutes of a 220 minute movie. It's not like in the last quarter of the movie Two-Face just appears and kills people. The whole movie built up to it.
Yep, I've always thought that The Dark Knight was basically the story of how Harvey Dent became Two-Face.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. He's basically the only dynamic character in the film and everything important in the movie either involves or affect him.Yep, I've always thought that The Dark Knight was basically the story of how Harvey Dent became Two-Face.
Structurally, you're right. Dent suffers more pain than Batman (although this is kinda arguable), goes through more change, and does more to move the plot. He's not the main character or the viewpoint character, but he is the protagonist. The story turns on him.
I'll argue with this (just for the sake of discussion). Yeah, Dent may have suffered physical pain and lost the woman he wanted to marry, but Batman lost the only woman he's ever wanted to be with in his life, lost his one hope for being 'normal' with the death of Dent, and now is even more of a criminal and douchebag in the eyes of Gotham. We also see him test how far he'll go for justice, and see the extent of his faith in the people of Gotham (ferries). Dent just kinda went nuts when his fiancee died, with Batman it's all shades of grey and a constant struggle between insanity and righteousness. I think he's crossed the line more than once in these movies and that's what makes him a dynamic character.Yep, I've always thought that The Dark Knight was basically the story of how Harvey Dent became Two-Face.
Structurally, you're right. Dent suffers more pain than Batman (although this is kinda arguable), goes through more change, and does more to move the plot. He's not the main character or the viewpoint character, but he is the protagonist. The story turns on him.
Because I can, I'm going to watch it again. Somehow, I always felt that it was a bit... odd how Harvey suddenly turned into a maniacal character.I don't think that's what ariich is saying at all. I think he's just baffled by emin saying Two-Face was introduced in the last quarter of the movie. He wasn't. One of the major story arcs thoughout the entire film was his stransformation into 2F. The fact that the transformation didn't happen until the end doesn't somehow equate to him appearing out of nowhere. Significant time was spent from the very beginning developing the story that would enable his transformation.Did Two-Face appeared in the Hospital scene, yes or no? Was he there before that scene? Why do you try to make things so complicated? Your last sentence, I don't agree.
You're not understanding bosk's post. Harvey Dent is Two-Face. Harvey Dent appears within the first 15-20 minutes of a 220 minute movie. It's not like in the last quarter of the movie Two-Face just appears and kills people. The whole movie built up to it.
Somehow, I always felt that it was a bit... odd how Harvey suddenly turned into a maniacal character.Losing the love of your life would do crazy things to a person. But yes, I would have liked to have seen a slightly more gradual transformation.
Somehow, I always felt that it was a bit... odd how Harvey suddenly turned into a maniacal character.Losing the love of your life would do crazy things to a person. But yes, I would have liked to have seen a slightly more gradual transformation.
Somehow, I always felt that it was a bit... odd how Harvey suddenly turned into a maniacal character.Losing the love of your life would do crazy things to a person. But yes, I would have liked to have seen a slightly more gradual transformation.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is confirmed to play Alberto Falcone, son of Carmine Falcone..........goddammit, my excitement is building soooooo much for this film!!!!!:neverusethis:
I'm over-obsessing with this film, to the point where it's unhealthy lol. I think about it every day and the possibilities and what it's gonna be like. The sad part is that they haven't even started filming the thing, so technically, I'm obsessing over something that doesn't even exist haha.
Bottom line, I've never been more excited about a movie than this one!
I'm over-obsessing with this film, to the point where it's unhealthy lol. I think about it every day and the possibilities and what it's gonna be like. The sad part is that they haven't even started filming the thing, so technically, I'm obsessing over something that doesn't even exist haha.
Bottom line, I've never been more excited about a movie than this one!
There there...it's all right. It'll be okay.
stolen from proglerock over in five8.
(https://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/116/1169616/hardy-bane-1st-look_1305910729_640w.jpg)
God, Tom hardy looks so badass in that picture. Im so excited to see what he brings to the character, and we can finally see the character get credibility again (Fuck you Schumacher)
Viral? It's just a promo shot of Bane.
apparently liam neeson was spotted at the dkr set, possibly for flashback filming.Ooooor they could bring into the movies the concepts of the Lazarus Pits and bring back Neeson in the present.
his daughter will be in this movie, so i assume we find out about her through his training of bat doodle.
apparently liam neeson was spotted at the dkr set, possibly for flashback filming.Ooooor they could bring into the movies the concepts of the Lazarus Pits and bring back Neeson in the present.
his daughter will be in this movie, so i assume we find out about her through his training of bat doodle.
I know, it's wishful thinking on my part.apparently liam neeson was spotted at the dkr set, possibly for flashback filming.Ooooor they could bring into the movies the concepts of the Lazarus Pits and bring back Neeson in the present.
his daughter will be in this movie, so i assume we find out about her through his training of bat doodle.
I can't see that happening in Nolan's universe.
apparently liam neeson was spotted at the dkr set, possibly for flashback filming.Ooooor they could bring into the movies the concepts of the Lazarus Pits and bring back Neeson in the present.
his daughter will be in this movie, so i assume we find out about her through his training of bat doodle.
I can't see that happening in Nolan's universe.
Reminds me of Inception, but cool nonetheless
Reminds me of Inception, but cool nonethelessEvery poster for every Nolan movie reminds everyone of every other Nolan movie.
Goddammit don't just link someone to tvtropes without a warning, that shit's dangerous.
A friend of mine is a projectionist...there will be a trailer (with footage) attached to HP7.2.I am a projectionist as well and I can confirm this.
Goddammit don't just link someone to tvtropes without a warning, that shit's dangerous.
Why? Does it have viruses?
Gordon. He's talking to Bruce about how Gotham needs Batman.
Looks pretty good, imo.How can you judge from that??
I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
The things is... Bane is an incredibly intelligent criminal in the comics.I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
The things is... Bane is an incredibly intelligent criminal in the comics.I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
Nolan could do a movie version of the "breaking of the Bat" storyline from the comics. But I doubt it, with all the other people that has been cast.
Doing that storyline would make sense, since WB is rebooting Batman after TDKR.
JUST WHAT WE NEED
Except not. Let Zack Snyder do "The Dark Knight Returns" and then be done with Batman for a decade.
JUST WHAT WE NEEDOr let Darren Aronofsky do it.
Except not. Let Zack Snyder do "The Dark Knight Returns" and then be done with Batman for a decade.
JUST WHAT WE NEEDOr let Darren Aronofsky direct every movie ever.
Except not. Let Zack Snyder do "The Dark Knight Returns" and then be done with Batman for a decade.
The Dark Knight Goes To Jail
The Dark Knight Scared Stupid
Well no new Batman movie will ever sell as much as Nolan's anyway. Why bother?
I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
I thought the dark tone of the trailer was interesting too. They almost want you to think Bane is more evil than the Joker.
Yea, but I think this wanted to make Bane look like an unstoppable animal. So while Joker may have been the brain, Bane is the body.
True.....but Bane is just as smart if not smarter than Batman. He's everything rolled into one, which is what makes him so horrifying. :tup
I get you Adami.
Like no woman ever could. :heart
I get you Adami.
Like no woman ever could. :heart
.........................from behind?
Have you guys seen THIS trailer!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3LL5kvJkw&feature=player_embedded
O_O
It was done well enough I wish it was real.Have you guys seen THIS trailer!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3LL5kvJkw&feature=player_embedded
O_O
That was insanely well done.
Have you guys seen THIS trailer!?I wonder which movie they took the shots of "Bane" guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3LL5kvJkw&feature=player_embedded
O_O
The Dark Knight Goes To Jail
The Dark Knight Scared Stupid
Well no new Batman movie will ever sell as much as Nolan's anyway. Why bother?
cos it will make money, and that's all wb cares about. my guess is they will go with the batman/superman franchise if superman makes money. sort of rivaling the avengers universe.
not much to post on the batmobile, it's the same as the old one. the main question is why is it not painted black?Are we going to see multiple ones as well, seeing as they had 3 military painted ones driving up a road...
not much to post on the batmobile, it's the same as the old one. the main question is why is it not painted black?Are we going to see multiple ones as well, seeing as they had 3 military painted ones driving up a road...
Have you guys seen THIS trailer!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3LL5kvJkw&feature=player_embedded
O_O
not much to post on the batmobile, it's the same as the old one. the main question is why is it not painted black?Are we going to see multiple ones as well, seeing as they had 3 military painted ones driving up a road...
my wild guess was since bane and his henchmen were all in camo, they stole the plans for the tumbler and made their own 3 tanks.
the only time Pittsburgh will ever matter to me.
.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Ra's Al Gul is in the present, I mean, isn't that how it is in the comics? Isn't he like 500 years old?
.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Ra's Al Gul is in the present, I mean, isn't that how it is in the comics? Isn't he like 500 years old?
I don't see that happening, seeing as how Nolan's version is realistic. If he is in the present, I'll be very surprised, unless he jumped out of the train at the end of BB. Just like the venom part of Bane and him getting his muscles from it......it can't happen in real life.
(https://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/53641.jpg)
https://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31692
Is this going to be in 3D? That might be the only thing that gets me to see it.
wat
Is this going to be in 3D? That might be the only thing that gets me to see it.wat
I heard that she will have a mask/cowl at some point in the movie according to batman-news.com. She better not team up with batman, cause that'll just be retarded.Umm... why?
Catwoman is an anti-hero and teams up with Batman often in the comics.Yep. That. So, how's that retarded, FTBD?
Truce.......whatever Nolan does it'll be gold. :tup
I don't know what the whole deal is with the goggles Anne Hathaway is using... but she looks damn hot in the outfit!
https://www.spoilertv.co.uk/images/Movies/Batman%203%20-%20The%20Dark%20Knight%20Rises/Promotional%20Photos/tumblr_lph8nlBBlo1qiy7aco1_1280.jpg.php
https://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2566966/anne-hathaway-as-dark-knight-rises-catwoman-first-look-02/
I don't know what the whole deal is with the goggles Anne Hathaway is using... but she looks damn hot in the outfit!
https://www.spoilertv.co.uk/images/Movies/Batman%203%20-%20The%20Dark%20Knight%20Rises/Promotional%20Photos/tumblr_lph8nlBBlo1qiy7aco1_1280.jpg.php
https://justjared.buzznet.com/photo-gallery/2566966/anne-hathaway-as-dark-knight-rises-catwoman-first-look-02/
Just letting you know that the first picture is a fake one. Its a photoshopped version of a Lara Croft cosplayer
My guess is they'll enhance him a bit with cgi in the muscle department, but I'm thinking that instead of venom, it's a gas he breathes judging by the mask, probably derived from the fear toxin from Batman Begins, due to all the connections this film will have to that one.
My guess is they'll enhance him a bit with cgi in the muscle department, but I'm thinking that instead of venom, it's a gas he breathes judging by the mask, probably derived from the fear toxin from Batman Begins, due to all the connections this film will have to that one.
This......it seems most likely. I'm kinda bothered by the fact that Bane is shorter than Batman.....he's supposed to tower over him. I wonder if they'll fix that with CGI
My guess is they'll enhance him a bit with cgi in the muscle department, but I'm thinking that instead of venom, it's a gas he breathes judging by the mask, probably derived from the fear toxin from Batman Begins, due to all the connections this film will have to that one.
This......it seems most likely. I'm kinda bothered by the fact that Bane is shorter than Batman.....he's supposed to tower over him. I wonder if they'll fix that with CGI
you don't look at the gollum guy with dots on them and say 'ah fuck, i can't believe they got a guy with dots on him to play him, that's retarded!'.:lol
I'm just sick of seeing all the initial negative reactions to pictures and info only to be followed by "I would be worried but it's Christopher Nolan". Now I wonder, how many times must that be said before one actually worries?
Video is private :(Better, I'll try to avoid his voice for a year (good luck with that, emin).
Bump.
We've gotten a hell of a lot of spoilers thus far. I have seen a variety of the pictures, but steered clear of a majority of the stuff. Can't wait for the film. As bosk1 will tell people, I am a Bat collector and crazy uber fan. I'm dreading the fundage I will be pouring into merch collecting once promotion for TDKR starts rolling.
So you have everything related to Batman & Robin?
Bump.
Don't care if it doesn't look like Catwoman.
In Nolan we trust.
This. Who cares? It's Anne HathawayAgreed.
I want this film. So. Bad.
I love the Tim Burton one.
it is possible! and maybe two face will be back too! can't wait to see it! :lolI hope so, but I doubt it.
"It's really all about finishing Batman and Bruce Wayne's story. We left him in a very precarious place. Perhaps surprisingly for some people, our story picks up quite a bit later, eight years after The Dark Knight. So he's an older Bruce Wayne; he's not in a great state.
"What our IMAX prologue is aiming at showing is that Bane's a very different kind of villain than Batman has faced before in our films," Nolan continues, "He's a great sort of movie monster, but with an incredible brain, and that was a side of him that hadn't been tapped before. Because the stories from the comics are very epic and very evocative - very much in the way that Bruce Wayne's origin story is epic and evocative. We were looking to really parallel that with our choice of villain. So he is a worthy adversary."
basically the first six, seven minutes of the film. It's the introduction to Bane and a taste of the rest of the film. With Bane we are looking to give Batman a physical challenge that he hasn't had before."
The world of Batman, indeed the world of all graphic novels, deals with archetypes," he says, "And there's a very real sense in which The Joker is an extreme and an absolute and Batman is an extreme and an absolute. So when you're looking to continue the story - in this case finish Bruce Wayne and Batman's story, as we see it - then you certainly don't want a watered-down version of a character you've already done. You want a different archetype. What Bane represents in the comics is the ultimate physical villain.
He's brutal. Brutal. He's a big dude who's incredibly clinical, in the fact that he has a result-based and oriented fighting style. It's not about fighting. It's about carnage. The style is heavy-handed, heavy-footed, it's nasty. Anything from small-joint manipulation to crushing skulls, crushing rib cages, stamping on shins and knees and necks and collarbones and snapping heads off and tearing his fists through chests, ripping out spinal columns. He is a terrorist in mentality as well as brutal action.
He was injured early in his story. He's suffering from pain and he needs gas to survive. He cannot survive the pain without the mask. The pipes from the mask go back along his jawline and feed into the thing at the back where there are two canisters of what ever it is... the anesthetic."
The Dark Knight Rises is also notably the first of Nolan's Batman films to show is main character operating in daylight. A bold decision; after all, this is hardly the Adam West TV show. "We felt to some degree we'd earned the right to do that with the character," explains Nolan.
The eight years later part I find extremely fascinating. Eight years?! Can't wait to find out what Batman was up to for that whole time.
The eight years later part I find extremely fascinating. Eight years?! Can't wait to find out what Batman was up to for that whole time.
I remember awhile back, you coming up with the (very awesome) idea of the Joker being reprised simply by Bruce/Batman visiting Arkham, passing a cell labeled "Joke" and hearing the infamous laugh inside the cell. If Nolan wanted to, he could similarly tip the hat to tons of other Batman universe references by indirectly referring to other baddies Batman has had locked up during that 8-year period. I'm thinking that 8-year gap allows Nolan a LOT of free rein to sprinkle in references like that to his heart's content that will really make the fans that are familiar with the Batman universe very happy without bogging the movie down in too many different storylines.
Honestly, it wouldn't upset me if Bats were to die in DKR, as that would just give us ample opportunity to reboot again and go a different direction. I'm also not sure if the execs at Warner would even care much. With all of the high class attention the last film got, you'd think they'd do for as dramatic of a film to garner as much academy consideration as possible.
Up until now, I had no idea so much time was supposed to pass (twice as much as has actually).
You know, when this is all said and done, I hope people will look back in 50 years upon this as the equivalency of the Dollars trilogy is terms of impact, execution and classic story-telling. I don't feel much attention to the other franchises of the last decade or so, so this point is important to me. To be able to share something this good with my grandchildren means a lot.
Does anyone think it's likely that Batman has been laying low for 8 years and hasn't been doing much? His intention seemed to be going into hiding to some degree after TDK.
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.
JLA?
That is pretty much the original lineup from the late 50s/early 60s. And has been the core of the lineup for most of the JLA's history.
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.
DC need to take a page from Marvel's book and get with it. I can see that they had some potential tie-ins for later in Green Lantern (bringing in Amanda Waller), but they really better be planting more seeds and ironing out greater plans. My suggestion is tie Man of Steel into Green Lantern and then do a JLA film, introducing the other characters as well as a new Batman. Focus on the arrival of J'onn J'onzz bringing all the characters together to take on a big threat, like Darkseid. Then spin-off some of the new characters with their own origin films (Flash is a personal favorite, as well as the new Batman). Follow those up with a golden-era style Justice Society movie as an alternate world prequel to JLA. Then merge the two for an epic sequel based on Crisis on Infinite Earths. That would be my ten year plan.
DC have the greatest characters in comics and they're letting them go to waste.
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.Didn't Warner already come out and said that after TDKR, Batman is getting rebooted?
The problem is, they want to do a JLA movie. Nolan's relatively realistic version of Batman really doesn't fit in that setting. Unless plans fall apart we'll be seeing a reboot in fairly short order, and, I expect, it will be a more "superhero" version of Batman.Didn't Warner already come out and said that after TDKR, Batman is getting rebooted?
I faintly remember reading that.
DC is owned by Warner Bros. and all related DC comic (and Vertigo) adaptations are released exclusively under Warner, so there is no issue with contracts or licenses. They didn't have a game plan. They've had four years to at least try to imitate Marvel's layout but haven't even tried. They need an Avi Arad-type as an overseeing force to see things smoothly come together.
The eight years later part I find extremely fascinating. Eight years?! Can't wait to find out what Batman was up to for that whole time.
I remember awhile back, you coming up with the (very awesome) idea of the Joker being reprised simply by Bruce/Batman visiting Arkham, passing a cell labeled "Joke" and hearing the infamous laugh inside the cell. If Nolan wanted to, he could similarly tip the hat to tons of other Batman universe references by indirectly referring to other baddies Batman has had locked up during that 8-year period. I'm thinking that 8-year gap allows Nolan a LOT of free rein to sprinkle in references like that to his heart's content that will really make the fans that are familiar with the Batman universe very happy without bogging the movie down in too many different storylines.
Does anyone think it's likely that Batman has been laying low for 8 years and hasn't been doing much? His intention seemed to be going into hiding to some degree after TDK. I doubt he had 8 years in mind, but I could see it.
How it should've ended: The Dark Knight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs:lol
How it should've ended: The Dark Knight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs:lol
LOVING that new poster :heart
Couldn't understand Bane at all :/I had heard that he was very difficult to hear even in the theater. Hopefully that gets solved before the full movie comes out.
Couldn't understand Bane at all :/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NMmr_EwwBOg
Youtube link for those who don't want to mess with Quicktime.
Bane's a wee bit difficult to understand.
Wow, that trailer was pretty awesome.
This is probably my most anticipated movie of the summer season.
While I doubt it's going to be better than Dark Knight-which is one of my favorite movies PERIOD-I can't wait to see this. Looks totally epic.
Some thoughts on the trailer/plot whatever...
"When Gotham is in ashes, you have my permission to die" - Interesting scene when Bane looks down on Bruce Wayne, I'm not really sure what to make of it. Maybe Bane crushes Batman early on in the movie, and he barely survives, but goes into hiding or some place where he can start training and regain his health/muscles and all that again. (The Dark Knight RISES)
But we also have the "this is a time of peace" or something similar-quote, which makes me very intrigued because it's like if Batman cleared the bad guys from Gotham, so nobody dares to do crimes anymore, then it makes me more interested in Bane because it is like if he has planned his master plan for a while, and when he starts doing it, everything falls apart.
I'm also very interested in seeing what kind of parts that Gordon-Levitt and Cotillard will be playing, also how Catwoman will be involved in the whole mess, but all in all I am very excited.
Not the greatest trailer but I have no doubt it will be great.
I loved the first two movies, but for some reason I just can't scrounge up any excitement for this one. I'm not even sure why; it looks promising.
Its my most anticipated movie of the year and more. I haven't watched the new trailer because I heard its supposed to be one of the previews before Avengers. Saving it for the big screen! I heard Bane's voice is different.
I loved the first two movies, but for some reason I just can't scrounge up any excitement for this one.
It's funny because some of your reasons for not being excited for it are the exact reason I am looking forward to TDKR. The reason The Dark Knight was so fucking good was that it was only partially an action/super hero movie. In fact, the movie had so much more going on for it that really felt like an intelligent, well written and cerebral film that just so happened to take place in the Batman universe. Which is what I hope TDKR is. Something more than just a super hero movie like it's predecessor.
Movie will be 2 hours 45 minutes long. :caffeine:This is... glorious...
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.???
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused.
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.
The Dark Knight didn't seem overly long to me. Once someone pointed out the background music thing, that kind of annoyed me, but the movie is still great.
What was wrong with it? It wasn't anymore far fetched than anything else in the movie.
And it's still more believable than what's seen on shows like CSI and Bones.
The Dark Knight didn't seem overly long to me. Once someone pointed out the background music thing, that kind of annoyed me, but the movie is still great.
I'm afraid to ask, but what music thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAVNyBRqNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAVNyBRqNs)Damn. I just came in here to post this :lol
The Dark Knight Rises - MTV Movie Award Footage
Pretty much new stuff and I really like what I'm seeing. I actually didn't think much of this movie in the beginning, but now after a few trailers I'm starting to think it will rock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAVNyBRqNs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAVNyBRqNs)
The Dark Knight Rises - MTV Movie Award Footage
Pretty much new stuff and I really like what I'm seeing. I actually didn't think much of this movie in the beginning, but now after a few trailers I'm starting to think it will rock.
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Yeah, because Harvey Dent/Two Face wasn't a major plot device or anything.The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Agree. It was about 1 or 2 acts too long and din't need two face at all.
Or the only dynamic protagonist the movie has.
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Agree. It was about 1 or 2 acts too long and din't need two face at all.
Bought IMAX tickets for a Saturday night showing. Going with 3 other friends. My eyes are ready.
I thought about the triple feature but I'm wussing out. Batman Begins + TDK + TDKR for an epic 7+ hours eyegasm. Is anyone going for it? Its $25 for regular and $40 for IMAX. I couldn't find the triple in IMAX so I said screw I want to experience this in IMAX or nothing.
I got regular tickets for the midnight showing but for some reason the lady said that the imax tickets aren't on sale yet there, so I have to go back and swap em for imax tickets when they go on sale ???
The Dark Knight would've been better if it was shorter and more focused, so I'm not sure how I feel about this.And this=wrong.
I want to see this movie soooo badly. TDK is one of my Top 5 movies ever, surpassed only by Sin City and A Fish Called Wanda.Wouldn't that put it in your Top 3?
Seeing a screening tomorrow night. helps to have friends in good places. Not Imax (for which I already have tickets for). But lets say my ball sack is about busted to see this at 7:00 pm. here in New Jersey tomorrow night
I already have my ImAX tickets, but no f'n way am I gonna pass up the opportunity to see it tomorrow. I actually thought about it alot. I wanted my first impression to be IMAX, but, I could not resist. My boner is ten miles high. sleep will not be an option tonight.
Christian Bale has made statements saying he'd love to play Batman again if Nolan wanted to do more movies. I doubt he'd say that if Batman was getting killed off.
i'm calling an audible on this one. the final scene is the same as the first movie where you see the wayne cemetery and camera pans through the names, with bruce wayne at the end. then pulls back to show bruce in a wheel chair.
meaning; he fakes his death to avoid the rich target bane accused him of being and starts the batman beyond apprentice since he's crippled from the spine crack.
Have seen the movie. HOLY MOTHER FUCKER!and sorry, not gonna say anything with spoilers, cause each should watch it and decide. No spoiler, no comments per say about the intraciecies. , i will let everyone decide when they see it. i will say, IMHO, 2 things. FUCKIN AWESOME MOVIE, and FU Mr, Nolan........... (with upmost regards, and i love you man)), cause you left me wanting more. just sayin. Mr. Nolan rocks. I know i will catch shit for this (cause it is like a dinner at a wedding) 1/2 will like the food...1/2 wont). That said. If you dont like this movie, suck my balls.
In my opinion, this will make a shitload of money. and well desrved. Just gonna say, this movie will be the highest grossing movie ever.
Not saying it will win academy awards, but if a fan of Nolan and the prior 2 films, your balls will explode. and if you are a gal.........well, goodbye breasts.
saw a screening last night. Good to know peeps. Again, i am not gonna do spoilers,but will say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a BALLS film. I liked the last film, but will say, this just..........wow, my bober has not gone down in 2 days since i have seen it.Boy this makes me more amped for July 20. DAAAAMN
saw a screening last night. Good to know peeps. Again, i am not gonna do spoilers,but will say,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a BALLS film. I liked the last film, but will say, this just..........wow, my bober has not gone down in 2 days since i have seen it.
Have seen the movie. HOLY MOTHER FUCKER!and sorry, not gonna say anything with spoilers, cause each should watch it and decide. No spoiler, no comments per say about the intraciecies. , i will let everyone decide when they see it. i will say, IMHO, 2 things. FUCKIN AWESOME MOVIE, and FU Mr, Nolan........... (with upmost regards, and i love you man)), cause you left me wanting more. just sayin. Mr. Nolan rocks. I know i will catch shit for this (cause it is like a dinner at a wedding) 1/2 will like the food...1/2 wont). That said. If you dont like this movie, suck my balls.
In my opinion, this will make a shitload of money. and well desrved. Just gonna say, this movie will be the highest grossing movie ever.
Not saying it will win academy awards, but if a fan of Nolan and the prior 2 films, your balls will explode. and if you are a gal.........well, goodbye breasts.
How can it not be finished when it's out next month ? :P
Pretty sure films get finished up to six months before release date.
I dunno but that doesn't mean all films follow the same pattern.
Star Trek 2 wrapped principal photography last month and that's not out til May.
How can it not be finished when it's out next month ? :P
Pretty sure films get finished up to six months before release date.
Didn't Avengers add the 2nd credits scene right before release?
How can it not be finished when it's out next month ? :P
Pretty sure films get finished up to six months before release date.
And none of the Star Wars films are finished yet.
That just means that principal shooting is finished, and the actors have gone home. (with the brief phone up for a quick re-take or voice over for something the mic didn't capture)
Mostly they just "twiddle" at this phase. Make sure the editing is done the way they want....
It's done...but they're fine tuning in a studio somewhere, so it's not *really* done.
If I recall correctly, none of the LOTR films were 100% finished until weeks before release.
i assume the broken batman mask is from the initial confrontation when bane prisons wayne. Wayne escapes, goes on a soul search, so when he comes back, bane knows him already.
Got tickets to see the full trilogy in the theater on the 19th, ending with the midnight premiere. My body is so ready I may explode.
Running time has been revealed: 164 minutes, 27 seconds.
Good movies take time.
I hope Nolan doesn't stop from being amazing. He has a great track record going.
Don't forget Memento.Good movies take time.
I hope Nolan doesn't stop from being amazing. He has a great track record going.
Prestige / Inception / Batman 1 - 3
and Insomnia. Seems folks tend to overlook that film, which I think is great.
This is a Batman thread. Please keep discussion limited to movies people have actually heard of.This coming from the Dark Hipster of the Sith? For shame.
Not really the point at all, but I'm pretty sure his warning still stands considering it is... TDKR thread. Not Nolan thread. It's not. Snot stew. So just hush, Goomba. Hush or I'll stomp on you like a stomper.
This is a Batman thread. Please keep discussion limited to movies people have actually heard of.This coming from the Dark Hipster of the Sith? For shame.
Not really the point at all, but I'm pretty sure his warning still stands considering it is... TDKR thread. Not Nolan thread. It's not. Snot stew. So just hush, Goomba. Hush or I'll stomp on you like a stomper.Oh, I got that completely. I just found that good ol' Bosky's way of telling us to shoosh was kind of...rude.
But I gotta be honest. I think all the type, marketing, and publicity around this film is getting out of hand.
Don't forget Memento.Good movies take time.
I hope Nolan doesn't stop from being amazing. He has a great track record going.
Prestige / Inception / Batman 1 - 3
I am so excite for this film.
Will you be on the moon? Because that's the only excuse not to be there opening weekend.
I'm watching Batman Begins tonight! :metal
The negative press this movie is getting is stupid.
Nine out of ten. I think The Dark Knight is a better movie, but that takes nothing away from this one.
The ending might be the most important moment in movie history.
https://news.sky.com/story/962756/reports-10-shot-dead-at-batman-film-premiere (https://news.sky.com/story/962756/reports-10-shot-dead-at-batman-film-premiere)
Horrific...
https://news.sky.com/story/962756/reports-10-shot-dead-at-batman-film-premiere
Horrific...
I loved it, a lot. But there is no way this can be held up to the The Dark Knight. That movie just has so much more going on with it. The characters felt a lot more dense in TDK, especially The Joker. Don't get me wrong, Bane was fucking awesome (especially as played by Tom Hardy), but I couldn't help but feel that his character was underdeveloped and he felt more like a walking plot device instead of an overly important character.
And the on going themes in TDK felt more important. TDKR feels more like "Just the conclusion" since it really is just a story about redemption (and I suppose the whole rising above your challenges to overcome great feats).
I kind knew from the initial announcement of a 3rd Batman movie to be in the series that it would be this way. A great film but not of the same caliber as its predecessor.
8/10
Critics aren't paid to have moderate opinions.
Apparently, Nolan thought of the ending first and created the story to build up to it. This is how all films ideally should be made. Nolan is a smart guy.
I'm not gonna make the knee jerk comparison to Avengers, because the two movies do totally different things as comic book movies, but Dark Knight Rises is really, really fucking good.
I really liked how they didn't call Selina Kyle "Catwoman". Her flip up goggles that doubled as cat ears was a brilliant subtle touch.
Just two questions (spoilers, I guess)
1. Why did Bane need Bruce's fingerprints in the first place.
2. How did Bruce get back to Gotham, wasn't he broke and all the bridges were out and he was on the other side of the world?
2. Doing Batman ninja things. I dunno.
SPOILERS2. Doing Batman ninja things. I dunno.
Yeah, I just assumed it's because he's the goddamned batman. I mean, it wasn't a berlin wall situation or anything, it was only the bridges that were really guarded. I don't have a very hard time believing that he found some way onto the island.
Nine out of ten. I think The Dark Knight is a better movie, but that takes nothing away from this one.
The ending might be the most important moment in movie history.
It was easily my favorite movie in the trilogy, but you'll have to explain that second comment :P
The Joker and Bane are also complete polar opposites in terms of the type of villians they are. Simply put, The Joker can be seen as a representation of chaos. He has no plan, he just makes everything fall into place as events play out. He has no order.
Bane on the other hand is extremely calculated, and precise and has one mission to complete. And I like the way he was portrayed in TDKR. But again, still less interesting than actually watching chaos unfold right in front of our eyes.
To the contrary, I think that love affair helped to make his character more complicated and therefore more like human life.
Hey, even monsters can be humans.
Because it rounds out his character with a great sense of finality. You were building up to this character that was born in the prison and was the one child who ever escaped, and then towards the very end of his life you realize that he's been a henchman all along. He was never the forger of his own destiny.
Yeah my friend believes Bruce is dead, says it's just like a "dream" or sort of like Alfred's fantasy. It's open to interpretation, just like Inception's spinning top.
Yeah my friend believes Bruce is dead, says it's just like a "dream" or sort of like Alfred's fantasy. It's open to interpretation, just like Inception's spinning top.
The funny thing about Inception's spinning top is that Nolan said it didn't mean that it was still a dream, it meant he'd turned his back on what had happened to him and he was moving on. Which is kind of funny in light of the end of Rises.
SPOILERS
I'm starting to see ending conspiracy theories about how Batman was actually dead. I don't buy it. Why would Alfred see Catwoman if he was hallucinating?
Excellent film. Not up to par with The Dark Knight, but it's close.Please don't.
I'll probably write a shitty review on it that no one will want to read.
Scratch that, I'm definitely going to write a shitty review on it that no one will want to read.
Yeah my friend believes Bruce is dead, says it's just like a "dream" or sort of like Alfred's fantasy. It's open to interpretation, just like Inception's spinning top.
Yeah my friend believes Bruce is dead, says it's just like a "dream" or sort of like Alfred's fantasy. It's open to interpretation, just like Inception's spinning top.
Why would Selina be in Alfred's dream, though.
Some plot holes and things I was thinking during TDKR that made me angry at the movie. I haven't seen a decline in quality from the God tier that is TDK to TDKR since the Star Wars prequels.
How did Bruce get back to Gotham after escaping the pit after we just established he has no money, in a country he isn't familiar with, with no passport. But he manages to not only get back to America but back to Gotham in less than 23 days.
I guess having someone punch exposed vertebrate into your body and doing pushups fixes broken spines in less than five months with no medical equipment.
So 500 Days of Summer just used his intuition to figure out its Batman? What a cop out, it also makes everyone else look like a fucking idiot especially Catwoman cause Bruce is talking like a fifth grader with that "my friend..." bullshit and she still couldn't put it together.
The ending was wrong. Having Batman live ruins all the drama the last 20 minutes spent creating with Bruce's death. Micheal Cains really sad cry was for nothing. Nolan could have just had Cain taking his drink, looking forward and smiling. It's called subtlety, he did it in Inception.
How did Bruce know the bomb was going to go off the day he got back to Gotham? He knew it would be five months sure, but was he keeping a calendar in that cell? How did he even get in the city with all the bridges blown up?
Why didn't the ice break when Batman was on it in that armor but normal people just walking breaks it.
How did 3000 cops who should be tired, hungry and weak after they were trapped underground for five months beat 1000 blackgate prisoners all of Banes men plus crazy Gotham City people who joined Banes side, when the cops had handguns and they had machine guns vantage points and tanks? The cops also finish all this business in less than an hour.
Why were the cops in full uniform looking perfectly fine when they escaped from under ground like they had only been there a day?
How did the Batbike blow up the cars blocking the tunnel? It fucking disintegrated the cars and made a perfect hole.
Bane being revealed as second banana to Talia ruins his character as a total powerful badass and make him a protector rather than a destroyer.
What did the Dent Act do and how did it keep prisoners in longer?
How fucking stupid is Bruce Wayne? How was he funding all those parties of his when his company is going into the ground and he didn't even know? I don't care if you're in your house, he must have saw the paper or heard it on tv. He is a business man.
"We will never willingly cross that ice" next scene willingly crossing the ice. I know the guy made the gesture like he was going to shoot them if they didn't walk, but in the court house I"m pretty sure Gordon thought they were going to get shot and he seemed pretty ok with it.
Why did they do a blood transfusion on the plane? If the body is so burned by the crash that they can't just identify that it's not the scientist by his face then a tiny portion of blood wont do shit. Plus dental records.
Why would Bruce walk with a cane for 8 years instead of just putting that brace on? The doctor say's he has literally no cartilage on any of his joints. My grandma, who is 76, has the same issue and can barley walk because it hurts so bad. And he developed all these problems in 8 years during his time off when he wasn't even leaving his house?
Why did Batman get his face stomped in the first time he fought Bane but after he broke his spine can suddenly overcome Bane during their second encounter? Why didn't any of the hundreds of other guys just shoot Batman when they saw Batman beating up their boss?
Both the main villains had extremely anti climactic deaths, especially Bane after so much build up.
Batman gets stabbed in the side pretty badly by Talia but then he just walks it off and it isn't mentioned anymore.
How did Bruce get the bomb six miles away from the city when he had less than two minutes till it blew up? Was he going 600 miles an hour? Didn't look like he was going that fast. Also fallout from the bomb and tidal wave it would have created would just fuck the city up anyway.
Also, why would he take the time to create a giant fire Bat symbol on a building when a nuke is going to go off. Better yet, how did he do that, with what? How did he even know Gordon was going to be on the ice so he could start the fire right there? Did he happen to have the gas can with him when he saw Gordon and thought it be cooler if he let him start it so Batman made a trail of gas down to the ice? This movie makes no sense.
Many other things are just wrong with this movie, but I'm going to stop cause I just wrote a novel.
You know, sometimes you read big critiques of a movie like that and you're like "holy crap, how did I not notice all those massive problems?!" and it totally ruins the movie for you.
This was not one of those times.
Why do all of those things need explaining? I hope you didn't forget you were watching a superhero movie that has a running time of nearly 3 hours. Sometimes you have to omit things that aren't critical to the plot. For example, it doesn't fucking matter how Batman got back to Gotham; getting out of the prison was the biggest obstacle in his way. If you somehow missed that, I don't think you were watching the movie for enjoyment to begin with.
The wonderful thing about Nolan's films is....they are the first comic book movies I've ever seen that make me forget I'm watching a comic book film. He's so talented at suspending my disbelief that I no longer feel I'm watching "a Batman Movie"...I'm really watching the story of a man named Bruce Wayne. What he went through, what he had to overcome, the people he knew, loved, and fought. No comic book movie has EVER suspended my disbelief so well.
Quote from: copy paste*snip*
I read this on another forum. Holy shit. I am so glad I am able to enjoy movies.
some raging nerd
you were watching a superhero movie
Awesome movie, but I'm not gonna watch it again for a while. I watched The Dark Knight way too much, and it kinda got stale for me.
TDKR is way better than begins.
Quote from: copy paste*snip*
I read this on another forum. Holy shit. I am so glad I am able to enjoy movies.
That post is filled with mostly legitimate problems that all nearly ruined the film for me.
Non-nitpicky issues I have:
1) Building Bane up into a badass and then killing him off as if he's a disposable henchman.
2) Alfred being perfectly at ease with seeing Bruce at the cafe. This is a complete 180 from previous scenes, most notably Alfred's departure from the Wayne estate and Bruce's burial service.Quotesome raging nerd
Replace 'nerd' with 'fanboy' and you've got a fairly apt description of your reply.you were watching a superhero movie
This would be a fair point if the trilogy hadn't previously established a tone of near-complete realism. As it is, the number of 'huh?' moments in TDKR is completely inexcusable.
For the record, I did enjoy this film. However, I don't get the feeling that most people came into this with a completely rational mindset. Think rose colored glasses.
That list is the exact reason why I never can get into superhero or most action movies. I dissect every little detail in movies and end up focussing on the stupid little shit that the director could have done perfect. It is because of this I have no desire to see TDKR.Call me a film snob, but this is bullshit.
That list is the exact reason why I never can get into superhero or most action movies. I dissect every little detail in movies and end up focussing on the stupid little shit that the director could have done perfect. It is because of this I have no desire to see TDKR.Call me a film snob, but this is bullshit.
*cough*avatar*cough*
I'm pretty sure I have already made some pretty vocal claims in the avatar thread before. Just read those. I have to go to work soon anyway.That list is the exact reason why I never can get into superhero or most action movies. I dissect every little detail in movies and end up focussing on the stupid little shit that the director could have done perfect. It is because of this I have no desire to see TDKR.Call me a film snob, but this is bullshit.
*cough*avatar*cough*
I challenge you to try and pick the shit of avatar, for real. Go to the avatar thread and plead your case, please.
I kinda wanted an inception ending. Alfred at the cafe and they just show a guy's back like they did the first time Alfred told the story. Zoom in slowly, cut to black
I'm pretty sure I have already made some pretty vocal claims in the avatar thread before. Just read those. I have to go to work soon anyway.That list is the exact reason why I never can get into superhero or most action movies. I dissect every little detail in movies and end up focussing on the stupid little shit that the director could have done perfect. It is because of this I have no desire to see TDKR.Call me a film snob, but this is bullshit.
*cough*avatar*cough*
I challenge you to try and pick the shit of avatar, for real. Go to the avatar thread and plead your case, please.
I don't see what purpose ambiguity would have served. If you thought he should have died that's one thing, but it makes no sense to pull an Inception ending. One of Inception's main themes was the blurring of dreams and reality, and whether being 'real' actually mattered: that was the whole point of the scene with the large group of old people sharing a dream. TDKR had none of that, and nothing would have been accomplished by making Bruce's end ambiguous.
edit: totally ninja'd by reap.
never said i disliked the actual ending and its obvious why it's there. i just like those ambiguous endings that's all.
I'd like to think Wayne snuck onto some planes and flew most of the way back, it's not that hard to believe, seeing as he's a fucking ninja and batman after all.
I know right.I'd like to think Wayne snuck onto some planes and flew most of the way back, it's not that hard to believe, seeing as he's a fucking ninja and batman after all.
Even before he became Batman he was making his way around the world without a dime to his name. But suddenly it's a stretch for him to get back to Gotham. Did these people, you know, watch Begins?
spoilers
i was so into the movie and rocked by what was happening i somehow missed the obvious 'bruce fixed the autopilot' line. NO IDEA how, but i thought of it as we saw him in the cafe. i also missed that catwoman was there with him. im dumb, or maybe i couldnt take my eyes off christian bale?
due to me missing the first point above i actually thought bruce fully sacrificed himself and michael caine as alfred at bruce's grave made me shed some man tears.
spoilers
i was so into the movie and rocked by what was happening i somehow missed the obvious 'bruce fixed the autopilot' line. NO IDEA how, but i thought of it as we saw him in the cafe. i also missed that catwoman was there with him. im dumb, or maybe i couldnt take my eyes off christian bale?
due to me missing the first point above i actually thought bruce fully sacrificed himself and michael caine as alfred at bruce's grave made me shed some man tears.
spoilers
i was so into the movie and rocked by what was happening i somehow missed the obvious 'bruce fixed the autopilot' line. NO IDEA how, but i thought of it as we saw him in the cafe. i also missed that catwoman was there with him. im dumb, or maybe i couldnt take my eyes off christian bale?
due to me missing the first point above i actually thought bruce fully sacrificed himself and michael caine as alfred at bruce's grave made me shed some man tears.
Spoilers:
The revelation that Bruce Wayne fixed the autopilot came after the funeral so based on the information given at the time it did seem like Bruce Wayne was dead at that point, so not hearing that line wouldn't have changed that (unless you just guessed the twist).
Looks like the thread is completely spoilers at this point, so I'm avoiding reading it.
But could someone quote this post (so I know which one to read) and let me know if there is a post credits scene so I know if I should stay?
Looks like the thread is completely spoilers at this point, so I'm avoiding reading it.
But could someone quote this post (so I know which one to read) and let me know if there is a post credits scene so I know if I should stay?
No.
Yeah, I never said I didn't like the ending either. I just suggested what one could do to have presented the audience with an open-ended element so that folks could get out of it whatever they like. Spelling it out doesn't leave much room for interpretation. But it's irrelevant as there were plenty of other moments that I'm sure we all had uniquely different reactions and feelings towards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58FU_yQYqhc&feature=plcp
we get it, you really aren't for an ambiguous ending. no one said they would have preferred it that way
This guy is in my brain. Especially what he says in the beginning about Burton's version...honestly thought I was the only one. Never heard my opinion come so precisely out of someone else's mouth. Kinda creepy.
I mean it was fun for watching Jack Nicholson, but would I ever watch it again? Probably not.
https://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2012/07/preparing_for_the_dark_knight_.html
Counterpoints to the frothing-at-the-mouth Nolan worshippers.
Also, Marion cotillard has some fine teddies.
Also, Marion cotillard has some fine teddies.
She's normally flat-chested, but she just pushed out a baby, so she's packing the goods. I know the exact shot you're referring to, when you get a profile shot of her sweater bust. My girlfriend exclaimed at the screening "her tits are huuuuuge!" :P
I'm going to see this shit today.
I EXCITE.
I still gotta see the motherfucka in imax.....never seen a film in imax before.
Wow. TDKR is probably the best movie I've ever seen. Flawless all the way through. Well, there was one directing mess-up when Bruce is talking to Lucius. When it shows Bruce, he's holding his cane on the top and sort of playing with it. When it shows Lucius, Bruce is holding the cane by the side and not moving it at all. That's the only mistake I caught.:tup
But other than that, completely flawless. TDK was great, but this movie blew the socks off of it. Every scene was incredible but nothing felt forced at all. Someone said earlier that the pacing was masterful. I can't pick a favorite scene, but I'll say that from the point Bruce climbs out of the pit to the end of the movie, I was completely entranced.
Something I thought that would have been cool is if they made Batman's survival a little more subtle. Maybe 1) an aside in a conversation with Lucius about Bruce's installing of an autopilot patch in the Bat, and 2) a nod from Alfred to an anonymous character in a restaurant (coupled with Batman's theme music coming in). It wouldn't be an ambiguous ending but it would have been subtle and Nolan-y.
Anyway, 10/10 movie. The Dark Knight is 9/10, Batman Begins is 8/10.
Also, Marion cotillard has some fine teddies.
She's normally flat-chested, but she just pushed out a baby, so she's packing the goods. I know the exact shot you're referring to, when you get a profile shot of her sweater bust. My girlfriend exclaimed at the screening "her tits are huuuuuge!" :P
I remember that shot very vividly. :angel:
I think at some point during writing this movie Christopher Nolan should have wikied "nuclear fusion" and found out that the first hydrogen bomb was tested 60 years ago.
I think at some point during writing this movie Christopher Nolan should have wikied "nuclear fusion" and found out that the first hydrogen bomb was tested 60 years ago.
And? The reactor was nothing like a normal nuclear power plant nor can a normal nuclear reactor be easily turned into a bomb, which was the whole issue with the movie one. Not really sure what the problem is.
*snip*
I think at some point during writing this movie Christopher Nolan should have wikied "nuclear fusion" and found out that the first hydrogen bomb was tested 60 years ago.
I'll never understand why people enter these threads and then complain about spoilers. The movie has been out for several days; major plot points are bound to be discussed. If you've haven't seen it yet, is it really that hard to stay out of the thread?
Well, I think it's better than The Dark Knight. I like The Dark Knight, but it's bloated, and the Two Face story-line was underdeveloped (not that I really want to see more of Eckhart in the role).
I think at some point during writing this movie Christopher Nolan should have wikied "nuclear fusion" and found out that the first hydrogen bomb was tested 60 years ago.
I think the point was it being the first fusion power plant, and I don't think Bruce necessarily meant it could be turned into a bomb as in it's never happened before. I think that line was just skating off the previous installment's 'terrorism' theme.
His explicit concerns with revealing it to the public was that the technology could be weaponized.
I just think that as a MacGuffin, something could've been chosen that wasn't so silly and contrived. Fuel cells decaying? For a reactor which probably uses some stable isotope of hydrogen (while being "radioactive")? It was even sillier than a weapon that evaporates all water (except water in people, plants, animals, buildings, etc.).
It could've just been some nuke Bane picked out of some poorly defended military base in Russia because he's a mercenary/terrorist. But nope, Nolan also had to jam in some parable about clean energy, its intentions remaining completely opaque, by the way. The moral of the story is that clean energy is dangerous? Or doesn't make money? I dunno.
His explicit concerns with revealing it to the public was that the technology could be weaponized.
I just think that as a MacGuffin, something could've been chosen that wasn't so silly and contrived. Fuel cells decaying? For a reactor which probably uses some stable isotope of hydrogen (while being "radioactive")? It was even sillier than a weapon that evaporates all water (except water in people, plants, animals, buildings, etc.).
It could've just been some nuke Bane picked out of some poorly defended military base in Russia because he's a mercenary/terrorist. But nope, Nolan also had to jam in some parable about clean energy, its intentions remaining completely opaque, by the way. The moral of the story is that clean energy is dangerous? Or doesn't make money? I dunno.
You couldn't just do a nuke from Russia. You needed the Wayne Enterprises subplot so Talia Al Ghul could be involved.
Am I the only one who thinks Nolan goes out of his way to try to make his movies excessively confusing? The Prestige plot line was incredibly convoluted IMO, and TDKR was also much more confusing than necessary.
I don't think he does. TDKR wasn't confusing at all. And people say Inception is way more complicated than it actually is.
People (thread OP), how about changing the title of the thread to The Dark Knight Rises (SPOLERS)
I didn't have any problem whatsoever with Inception, or any of his other movies for that matter (besides The Prestige), but there was something about this one that was quite confusing.
I think GP nailed it on the head
People (thread OP), how about changing the title of the thread to The Dark Knight Rises (SPOLERS)
It should be obvious. If it would help, sure, go for it. I really don't see why it's necessary though.
Beginning Friday, I didn't click on this thread until last night after I got home from the theater. Common sense.
I just read all of your complaints and really can't believe how much you guys are overreacting. It's like, you want to hold TDK to such a pedestal that you have to find some reason, any reason, to hate TDKR. No matter what happens, nothing must be better than TDK!
I agree. Everyone is saying that Bane isn't as good as a villain as the Joker. Of course that's true. The Joker and Dent was the whole point of that movie. That's not the case with TDKR. This movie focuses on Batman and Bruce Wayne. It's not going to have as strong as a villain because it's not supposed to.
I agree. Everyone is saying that Bane isn't as good as a villain as the Joker. Of course that's true. The Joker and Dent was the whole point of that movie. That's not the case with TDKR. This movie focuses on Batman and Bruce Wayne. It's not going to have as strong as a villain because it's not supposed to.
I thought there was the perfect amount of focus on Bruce Wayne/Batman.
I don't think he does. TDKR wasn't confusing at all. And people say Inception is way more complicated than it actually is.
There's a lot that would be misunderstood about the League of Shadows, I think, if you never saw BB.
yea TDKR is pretty much spelled out for the audience
A lot of people label just about any film that requires you to pay attention and actually think as a mindfuck.This.
A lot of people label just about any film that requires you to pay attention and actually think as a mindfuck.
The only part of the movie that I am choosing to interpret another way than strictly as it was presented was when Bruce was climbing out of the cage without a rope and the bats all flew out. I chose to believe that those bats were merely an allusion to his fears and not actually there.
A lot of people label just about any film that requires you to pay attention and actually think as a mindfuck.
A lot of people label just about any film that requires you to pay attention and actually think as a mindfuck.
It's not that I couldn't follow the plot, or didn't understand the ending. I just thought there were too many unnecessary side plots/characters, and that the excess hurt the movie's potential.
A lot of people label just about any film that requires you to pay attention and actually think as a mindfuck.
To be fair, it's sometimes hard to understand all the ins and outs of a film when your first viewing is mainly focused on enjoyment rather than analysis of all the details. And unless you're a film critic, your first viewing is probably almost entirely about entertainment.
The only Burton Batman I've seen is Batman and Robin. I take it that the others were much better?
The only Burton Batman I've seen is Batman and Robin. I take it that the others were much better?
The Batman/Catwoman dynamic just fascinates me to no end, thus leaving Rises and Returns at the top of list. and oh my god, that part in Returns where Batman and Catwoman come to the Masquerade ball and their costumes are Selena Kyle and Bruce Wayne. That's who they are pretending to be. Brilliant.
I rank Batman as high as I did because for those of us that saw it in 89 in the theater's, the hype for this was out of this world. Bear in mind at that time, the only perspective of (live-action) Batman was Adam West. This was mind-blowing at the time.
The only Burton Batman I've seen is Batman and Robin. I take it that the others were much better?
burton only did batman and batman returns.
for my money
TDK
Batman
Batman Returns
TDKR
Batman Begins
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
I rank Batman as high as I did because for those of us that saw it in 89 in the theater's, the hype for this was out of this world. Bear in mind at that time, the only perspective of (live-action) Batman was Adam West. This was mind-blowing at the time.
The only Burton Batman I've seen is Batman and Robin. I take it that the others were much better?
B&R should be stricken from the history books. Terrible in relation to the first three. It's kinda like Superman 4. I would say once you get to the third movie in a series (other than actual planned Trilogy's), the quality diminishes. By the fourth, 99% of those have jumped the shark ... or nuked the fridge (ironically, from a 4th movie!). The only 4th movie I can think of that's any good is Die Hard.
The Dark Knight Rises
The Dark Knight
Batman Begins
Batman Returns
Batman
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
I was told to post this and direct it at Chino:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3awmpoB6sP4&t=6m43s
I think it's entirely appropriate to critique a filmmaker who, when he doesn't know how to transition from one scene to the next, just has explosions appear to drive the thing forward.
I think it's entirely appropriate to critique a filmmaker who, when he doesn't know how to transition from one scene to the next, just has explosions appear to drive the thing forward.
Yes, but we're not talking about Michael Bay. However this is a true milestone GuineaPig, we finally found a movie you didn't like.
Bane was kick ass! Though, he uses his mask to breath analgesic gas... but where's the tanks? How is it store? Never cared while watching the movie but thinking about it later made me think about that, minor detail though and it doesn't need to be answered..
Yeah I was kinda hoping to peek under the mask myself. DVD bonus I'm sure.
Yeah I was kinda hoping to peek under the mask myself. DVD bonus I'm sure.
Under the mask... is Tom Hardy. Who is very handsome. Kinda the opposite of what I think you're going for.
My TDKR review is up!
https://thegreenthbeatle.wordpress.com/2012/07/26/the-dark-knight-rises/
Please feel free to post feedback on my blog.
Perhaps it was more of a message to all the tea baggers who let idealism blind them to human nature.
What did I say that I wouldn't be telling? Are you referring to the Robin stuff?
Oh. Well, I feel silly now. :P
Anyway, just so that it's at the front of the conversation:
Oh! Just remembered this: I agree with what you're saying about even socialism is corruptible (believe me, I'm not even that big a fan of socialism), but I thought the movie erred too grey on the side of the socialist component, and not grey enough on the 'capitalist' component, if you take my meaning. It seemed like everything was all jolly and Gotham was in "peace time," and that those pesky socialists decide to come in and muck everything up.
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
what was that again? i cant seem to remember
i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
what was that again? i cant seem to remember
i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
what was that again? i cant seem to remember
i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR
Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite. Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other. Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else. Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."
Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
what was that again? i cant seem to remember
i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR
Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite. Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other. Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else. Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."
Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
what was that again? i cant seem to remember
i do remember the joker saying that 'these good people will eat eachother alive' or something to that effect. which sort of did happen in TDKR
Yeah, but the conclusion was the opposite. Gotham refused to give into terror and destroy each other. Those separated by class and social status didn't turn against everyone else. Batman gave a whole monologue about how "Gotham just proved to you [The Joker] that they're better than you think they are etc."
Then once Bane shows up everyone's apparently okay with holding kangaroo courts to execute the wealthy.
Bane really didn't give them a choice. The Joker's plan was meant to create panic and chaos, wheras Bane just made it happen.
I swear that the first time that I saw TDK, I thought those people on the boats would have blown each other up. It was at that point where the movie kinda lost me, just cause it didn't seem believable, since its was such a high-pressure, life or death situation. I would have expected at least one person to go for the bomb trigger. But that's my own personal view.
The way I interpreted how Gotham was reacting to Bane was that the Kangaroo courts seemed populated mostly by the people Bane either brought with him or set loose. It didn't seem that many ordinary people were out there crucifying millionaires. They seemed more content to hide in their houses and pray for the best (like the cop Gordon tries to recruit). With the Joker, there was no real reason for the chaos and violence, and it was all just a game. Bane's rhetoric made it sound much more important, more fire and brimstone, some kind of grand design to inspire people, so if there were people out there with Bane's men, they were guided more by rhetoric. Joker was more of a nihilist and its not easy for people to go along willingly with that, I think.
I also don't think the OWS parallels quite fit because, while he does use SOME of that rhetoric (or at least what people think it is), he's doing it for very less-than-noble reasons. Its more of a comment on Nazis if you think about it. Preach about a great injustice that gets everyone on your side. Use evil methods to "solve" these injustices and "cleanse" evil.
Eh. I think it's pretty clear Nolan was trying to comment on political issues; Bane's rise to power and rule was a direct copy-paste of the violence of the French Revolution, and the usage of a lot of the lingo of the Occupy Wall Street protestors was far from unintentional. I just don't think enough time was spent on it to make it clear or compelling. It was sort of like some of the political stuff in The Dark Knight which should've been dropped because there wasn't enough screentime and just ended up seeming silly as a result. This time, instead of the political message being "warrantless wiretapping and surveillance is OK if you're cool like Batman" it's "socialist revolutions ain't cool, and you should follow authority figures like the police or benevolent billionaires like Bruce Wayne."
I didn't help that Nolan's view of the citizenry of Gotham was a complete opposite of what was established in The Dark Knight.
Bane really didn't give them a choice. The Joker's plan was meant to create panic and chaos, wheras Bane just made it happen.
What? They absolutely had a choice. Bane's flunkies were doing stuff yeah, but they were small in number and certainly didn't act alone. Tons of people were going along with them.I swear that the first time that I saw TDK, I thought those people on the boats would have blown each other up. It was at that point where the movie kinda lost me, just cause it didn't seem believable, since its was such a high-pressure, life or death situation. I would have expected at least one person to go for the bomb trigger. But that's my own personal view.
I agree. I thought it was a little naïve and painting too rosy a picture. Which makes it especially weird when the reverse happens in TDKR.The way I interpreted how Gotham was reacting to Bane was that the Kangaroo courts seemed populated mostly by the people Bane either brought with him or set loose. It didn't seem that many ordinary people were out there crucifying millionaires. They seemed more content to hide in their houses and pray for the best (like the cop Gordon tries to recruit). With the Joker, there was no real reason for the chaos and violence, and it was all just a game. Bane's rhetoric made it sound much more important, more fire and brimstone, some kind of grand design to inspire people, so if there were people out there with Bane's men, they were guided more by rhetoric. Joker was more of a nihilist and its not easy for people to go along willingly with that, I think.
I also don't think the OWS parallels quite fit because, while he does use SOME of that rhetoric (or at least what people think it is), he's doing it for very less-than-noble reasons. Its more of a comment on Nazis if you think about it. Preach about a great injustice that gets everyone on your side. Use evil methods to "solve" these injustices and "cleanse" evil.
The kangaroo courts did have Bane's flunkies about, but there were also tons of ordinary people there. And the scenes of the looting and arresting of the various rich people? There were none of the armed troops there, just Gotham citizens going about all Third Estate-style. While I agree that Bane tried to incite this particular form of violence, which separates him somewhat from the Joker who just tried to create chaos, it doesn't truly explain the degree to which people went over for it, I don't think. Especially considering the events of TDK.
I think what Nolan was going with the OWS parallels was this: trying to say, like how Catwoman relished the storm was coming and then lived to regret the chaos that followed, that people who are trying to radically destabilize the status quo aren't aware of the damage they would cause. I just don't think enough time was spent on it to develop it as a coherent idea.
RISEOMZ!!! TEH NUGGETZ!!!
This is pretty damn accurate.The Dark Knight Rises
The Dark Knight
Batman Begins
Batman Returns
Batman
Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
That was pretty dumb, I agree. Especially since they said earlier that the bomb would have a six mile blast radius. 2 minutes is not enough time to get six miles away from the land (that plane thing never flew very fast before) and then get Batman another six miles past it to survive. But I understand why they did it that way. It's more exciting. If they were realistic about it and said that Batman needed to take off with it at least 12 minutes before it explodes, that leads to a very anticlimactic ending. What do they do for that 12 minutes? Batman's just flying for 12 minutes at the most exciting point of the movie. That's a point where it's probably best to throw realism out the window.
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
That was pretty dumb, I agree. Especially since they said earlier that the bomb would have a six mile blast radius. 2 minutes is not enough time to get six miles away from the land (that plane thing never flew very fast before) and then get Batman another six miles past it to survive. But I understand why they did it that way. It's more exciting. If they were realistic about it and said that Batman needed to take off with it at least 12 minutes before it explodes, that leads to a very anticlimactic ending. What do they do for that 12 minutes? Batman's just flying for 12 minutes at the most exciting point of the movie. That's a point where it's probably best to throw realism out the window.
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
Sure, but he'd never shown any speed anywhere close to that previously. And I was mistaken in my previous thought that he would have had to go twice as far as that to survive the blast. He could have jumped out of the plane at any point and survived with the plane on autopilot. So I guess it's not all that unlikely afterall.That was pretty dumb, I agree. Especially since they said earlier that the bomb would have a six mile blast radius. 2 minutes is not enough time to get six miles away from the land (that plane thing never flew very fast before) and then get Batman another six miles past it to survive. But I understand why they did it that way. It's more exciting. If they were realistic about it and said that Batman needed to take off with it at least 12 minutes before it explodes, that leads to a very anticlimactic ending. What do they do for that 12 minutes? Batman's just flying for 12 minutes at the most exciting point of the movie. That's a point where it's probably best to throw realism out the window.
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
Is it not conceivable that, in a movie, a military grade flying vehicle invented my Wayne Technologies could travel at 180mph? That's how fast he'd have togo to get 6 miles in 2 minutes.
I don't really understand putting either of the first two Burton movies over any of the Nolan movies. They weren't really that great.
So, the film. I hesitate to make any firm judgments about it yet, but... right now, I'm feeling like it might be the worst Nolan Batman film. Don't get me wrong; it was still a very good film, and it was an excellent conclusion to the trilogy. However, as a film, I feel it was lacking compared to the others.Exactly how I feel about the film, the twist, and Bane. Except I have no hesitation calling it the weakest of the three - I seem to be one of the few people who actually really likes Batman Begins so I'd have been very surprised if this film was better than that, as well as being better than The Dark Knight. Batman Begins was much less ambitious than the latter two (which makes sense, being the first of the series). It's closer to a "normal" comic book film than the other two, but it manages to be easily the best of that type (imo). I like The Dark Knight about the same - it's got higher highs and obviously really aims higher than just being a regular superhero film. It's "weaknesses" are that it's basically The Joker Show, with Bruce Wayne / Batman taking a back seat, and I feel like it tries to cram in just one too many Joker plans than necessary. It's basically different but equal to Batman Begins for me, where as The Dark Knight Rises is similar to The Dark Knight and contains lots of great stuff, but has a few flaws that drag it down below the level of The Dark knight. The one quoted above being one of the biggest.
I blame the Bane storyline, which I feel was a major misstep. Now, the "twist" regarding Tate's kinship was fine, if not overly obvious. However, this has the effect of making Bane's storyline rather silly and anticlimactic.
The film opens with a Bane scene, and slowly we start to piece together Bane's plan. He is able to best Batman physically, and is exceedingly clever. Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that while Nolan's Joker is a chaotic figure, Bane is calculating, and it finally made sense to me watching the film why this progression is important. If you think about it, while the Joker was formidable, none of his plans ever really worked (neither boat bombed each other, he couldn't drive Batman to break his one rule, etc.). He only had one success, which was Dent's downfall.
But Bane promises to be Batman's reckoning, and he actually delivers. He says he's going to eliminate Gotham's government and return control to the people, and by God, he does exactly that. Bane succeeds in introducing anarchy to the city. In essence, this is the culmination of the threats the first two films proposed; finally, crime has reduced Gotham to nothing.
But then, at the film's end, it's revealed that he's not actually in charge of all, and it's actually Tate. Oh, and he loves her, despite being crazy and evil and without empathy. And then they just kill him, and he's no longer a factor for the rest of the film.
I'm disappointed in the way this was handled. And again, it's not like the twist couldn't have been well-handled. Batman Begins utilized a similar tactic with Scarecrow and Ra'as al Ghul, and there is a similar big reveal at the end. Throughout that film, however, you're never led to believe that Crane is the end-all-be-all of evil in Gotham; you know there's someone higher, but you're not quite sure who it could be. The twist in TDKR is handled with no such grace.
So, the film. I hesitate to make any firm judgments about it yet, but... right now, I'm feeling like it might be the worst Nolan Batman film. Don't get me wrong; it was still a very good film, and it was an excellent conclusion to the trilogy. However, as a film, I feel it was lacking compared to the others.Exactly how I feel about the film, the twist, and Bane. Except I have no hesitation calling it the weakest of the three - I seem to be one of the few people who actually really likes Batman Begins so I'd have been very surprised if this film was better than that, as well as being better than The Dark Knight. Batman Begins was much less ambitious than the latter two (which makes sense, being the first of the series). It's closer to a "normal" comic book film than the other two, but it manages to be easily the best of that type (imo). I like The Dark Knight about the same - it's got higher highs and obviously really aims higher than just being a regular superhero film. It's "weaknesses" are that it's basically The Joker Show, with Bruce Wayne / Batman taking a back seat, and I feel like it tries to cram in just one too many Joker plans than necessary. It's basically different but equal to Batman Begins for me, where as The Dark Knight Rises is similar to The Dark Knight and contains lots of great stuff, but has a few flaws that drag it down below the level of The Dark knight. The one quoted above being one of the biggest.
I blame the Bane storyline, which I feel was a major misstep. Now, the "twist" regarding Tate's kinship was fine, if not overly obvious. However, this has the effect of making Bane's storyline rather silly and anticlimactic.
The film opens with a Bane scene, and slowly we start to piece together Bane's plan. He is able to best Batman physically, and is exceedingly clever. Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that while Nolan's Joker is a chaotic figure, Bane is calculating, and it finally made sense to me watching the film why this progression is important. If you think about it, while the Joker was formidable, none of his plans ever really worked (neither boat bombed each other, he couldn't drive Batman to break his one rule, etc.). He only had one success, which was Dent's downfall.
But Bane promises to be Batman's reckoning, and he actually delivers. He says he's going to eliminate Gotham's government and return control to the people, and by God, he does exactly that. Bane succeeds in introducing anarchy to the city. In essence, this is the culmination of the threats the first two films proposed; finally, crime has reduced Gotham to nothing.
But then, at the film's end, it's revealed that he's not actually in charge of all, and it's actually Tate. Oh, and he loves her, despite being crazy and evil and without empathy. And then they just kill him, and he's no longer a factor for the rest of the film.
I'm disappointed in the way this was handled. And again, it's not like the twist couldn't have been well-handled. Batman Begins utilized a similar tactic with Scarecrow and Ra'as al Ghul, and there is a similar big reveal at the end. Throughout that film, however, you're never led to believe that Crane is the end-all-be-all of evil in Gotham; you know there's someone higher, but you're not quite sure who it could be. The twist in TDKR is handled with no such grace.
Just got back from my first viewing.Exactly what I was trying to say earlier only much, much better. Totally agree.
First of all, about 30 minutes into the film, the projector's bulb went out. My girlfriend freaked out because it reminded her of the Aurora shooting. Nothing of that sort happened, of course, and we got free concessions and free movie passes.
So, the film. I hesitate to make any firm judgments about it yet, but... right now, I'm feeling like it might be the worst Nolan Batman film. Don't get me wrong; it was still a very good film, and it was an excellent conclusion to the trilogy. However, as a film, I feel it was lacking compared to the others.
I blame the Bane storyline, which I feel was a major misstep. Now, the "twist" regarding Tate's kinship was fine, if not overly obvious. However, this has the effect of making Bane's storyline rather silly and anticlimactic.
The film opens with a Bane scene, and slowly we start to piece together Bane's plan. He is able to best Batman physically, and is exceedingly clever. Earlier in this thread, someone pointed out that while Nolan's Joker is a chaotic figure, Bane is calculating, and it finally made sense to me watching the film why this progression is important. If you think about it, while the Joker was formidable, none of his plans ever really worked (neither boat bombed each other, he couldn't drive Batman to break his one rule, etc.). He only had one success, which was Dent's downfall.
But Bane promises to be Batman's reckoning, and he actually delivers. He says he's going to eliminate Gotham's government and return control to the people, and by God, he does exactly that. Bane succeeds in introducing anarchy to the city. In essence, this is the culmination of the threats the first two films proposed; finally, crime has reduced Gotham to nothing.
But then, at the film's end, it's revealed that he's not actually in charge of all, and it's actually Tate. Oh, and he loves her, despite being crazy and evil and without empathy. And then they just kill him, and he's no longer a factor for the rest of the film.
I'm disappointed in the way this was handled. And again, it's not like the twist couldn't have been well-handled. Batman Begins utilized a similar tactic with Scarecrow and Ra'as al Ghul, and there is a similar big reveal at the end. Throughout that film, however, you're never led to believe that Crane is the end-all-be-all of evil in Gotham; you know there's someone higher, but you're not quite sure who it could be. The twist in TDKR is handled with no such grace.
I don't know. Maybe I need to see it again, and I'll comprehend the film's true genius then. But I'm disappointed now. What The Dark Knight's sequel needed was another great character, and Bane, despite my expectations, proved not to be it.
TDK
BB
TDKR
EDIT: Oh, one more thing. Now, I'm usually not the kind of person to complain about unrealistic things in superhero movies. I'm usually good with suspending my disbelief.
But seriously? Gotham is going to be blown up with a nuclear weapon in less than two minutes and you still have time to talk to Gordon and listen to Miranda Tate's story and fucking kiss Catwoman?
If I'm about to martyr myself for a city, hell yeah I'll take some seconds to mack with Anne Hathaway! :lol
I read somewhere that that whole sequence actually takes the 12 minutes that were on the bomb at the time. I'll be sure to be aware of that the next time I see it.
I mean from when Miranda pushes the button and the bomb doesn't go off.If I'm about to martyr myself for a city, hell yeah I'll take some seconds to mack with Anne Hathaway! :lol
I read somewhere that that whole sequence actually takes the 12 minutes that were on the bomb at the time. I'll be sure to be aware of that the next time I see it.
Where did you get 12 minutes? Pretty sure it said 2 minutes.
I stopped nitpicking movie countdowns to explosions about the time I timed the 30 seconds that Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum had to escape the alien mothership before it went KABOOM in Independence Day and got one minute and twenty nine seconds. :lol
Really, it's beyond nitpicking to get on the movie because Batman stops and does other things rather than grab the bomb and fly away immediately. Movie time is elastic, and far more film makers than Nolan have abused the amount of time actually passes versus the amount of time claimed to be passing. Hell half a season of Dragonball Z took place over FIVE MINUTES. Once you see something like that, Bruce taking the time to mack on Selena becomes almost trivial.
The films are supposed to be realistic, aren't they? Isn't that the whole draw of the Nolan Batman series -- that they are ultimately grounded in reality?
At the end of the day, though, I don't care so much. Yes, it's my opinion that the clock was poorly executed, but the movie had other, bigger problems. I only brought up the Catwoman makeout sesh because it really took me out of the experience, and reminded me that I was in fact watching a film.
The countdown thing didn't bother me. EVERY movie does that. While in the theater I noticed that when they showed the time at like 11:46 and then a minute or so passes by and when they show it again only 10 seconds counted down. Oh well.
The countdown thing didn't bother me. EVERY movie does that. While in the theater I noticed that when they showed the time at like 11:46 and then a minute or so passes by and when they show it again only 10 seconds counted down. Oh well.
Well a minute of viewer time can be anything in movie time. I mean were you shocked when the movie said 5 months passed but only like 1 minute passed for you?
I can't blame you if you were. I get confused by that stuff too. When Benjamin Button ended, I was like "WHAT YEAR IS IT?!?"
I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.
Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.
SPOILER
Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof. :huh:
I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.
Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.
That wouldn't have worked though and would have pissed off a bunch of people. Batman gets captured and the movie's over. LAME.
Yeah I know.SPOILER
Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof. :huh:
Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.
But Batman doesn't kill anyone.
Yeah I know.SPOILER
Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof. :huh:
Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.
But Batman doesn't kill anyone.
"Batman doesn't kill anyone"
SPOILER
Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof. :huh:
Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.
But Batman doesn't kill anyone.I meant that 11 minutes or whatever could have happened between cuts. It's weirder when you experience MORE time than the characters. Like if the bomb showed 11 minutes, and then 55 minutes later it reached 2 minutes.
Also I really think the movie should have been a 2 parter split when he goes into that jail. That 5 month gap was a bit much to take cause it felt like a week at most.
That wouldn't have worked though and would have pissed off a bunch of people. Batman gets captured and the movie's over. LAME.
Not END, but TO BE CONTINUED. How does a Bruce Wayne with a broken back get out of a inescapable jail while Gotham has officially fallen into chaos? It keeps you interested. Then in 2013, they could have released the 2nd part, expanded on a bit more and concluded it.
1. More story
2. More Batman
3. Makes the story more real
4. More money for the studios
5. More Anne Hathaway
6. ??? ??? ??? ???
7. Profit
It's a good idea. Sucks they didn't do it honestly. But I can't blame them since Harry Potter and Twilight already did the same thing.
Didn't you see them parachute out at the last minute?Quote"Batman doesn't kill anyone"
Except for when he fired a missile into the truck carrying the nuke, killing the driver and Talia.
Just a random thought I had. I'm not that much of a fan, so my first reaction was : He could've explode the shit out of him :cornYeah I know.SPOILER
Batman could've just killed Bane with his flying gadget when he saved Catwoman on the roof. :huh:
Batman could have killed most of his bad guys lots of times.
But Batman doesn't kill anyone.
So was your comment in jest? Or what?
Yea, but if you know he doesn't kill, then why were you perplexed?
:lol
On the subject of not killing, didn't he say something to Selina that the reason he didn't kill the dudes on the rooftop was because they were unarmed or something?
Yea, but if you know he doesn't kill, then why were you perplexed?
Well, he kills the other villain with a missile fired from his Batcopter.
There are a number of advantages to a longer run time; more themes can be explored, characters can be more fully fleshed out, nuance and subtlety dabbled in. I think most TV dramas are more compelling than dramatic films as a result.
The amount of stuff Nolan wanted to put into every Batman film meant that the dialogue was mostly reduced to exposition, lines meant to be very significant, and the occasional joke. With the amount of themes and characters that were stuffed into TDKR, a 13 episode season of television would've been able to handle the load a lot better.
Hey guys, turns out I wasn't just blowing hot air (well, mostly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Commentary
There are a number of advantages to a longer run time; more themes can be explored, characters can be more fully fleshed out, nuance and subtlety dabbled in. I think most TV dramas are more compelling than dramatic films as a result.
The amount of stuff Nolan wanted to put into every Batman film meant that the dialogue was mostly reduced to exposition, lines meant to be very significant, and the occasional joke. With the amount of themes and characters that were stuffed into TDKR, a 13 episode season of television would've been able to handle the load a lot better.
It's a real shame that shows can never be of the same cinematic quality as big movies for the basic reason of a lack of budget. Imagine if a 22 episode season was able to produce the cinematic quality of a Nolan film for every episode? Imagine the worlds that could be explored or stories told? Damn shame indeed.
I'm not sure how Batman got out of the blast radius in 5 seconds.SPOILER
I'm not sure how Batman got out of the blast radius in 5 seconds.Spoiler!!
Hey guys, turns out I wasn't just blowing hot air (well, mostly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Commentary
Yea, but it said Nolan himself denied all of the things you're saying.
That doesn't stop the nuclear fallout spreading for hundreds of miles, and Gotham, being just onshore, almost certainly being exposed to massive radiation levels.
I'm curious, if Heath Ledger hadn't passed away and was involved in the plot of TDKR, how he would have interacted with Bane. Would they have been allies or enemies. Would Joker have tried to stop Bane from taking Batman away from him?
Meh, sometimes it's not what you intend but what you say that's important.Hey guys, turns out I wasn't just blowing hot air (well, mostly): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Commentary
Yea, but it said Nolan himself denied all of the things you're saying.
On the other side of the political spectrum, politically conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh alleged that the film was biased against 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney due to Bane's name being a homophone for Bain Capital, the financial service company Romney used to head.
Why the fuck are people arguing about what Bruce Wayne's politics are?
Why the fuck are people arguing about what Bruce Wayne's politics are?
It would make a hell of a campaign ad.
"Vote for Obama 2012.......Batman would".
But the cinematic sequence showed the timer with 6 seconds left or something, and then Batman in the cockpit.I'm not sure how Batman got out of the blast radius in 5 seconds.SPOILER
He didn't. Lucius took apart the "Bat" and noted that the autopilot was fixed six months prior. He bat-bailed.
]But the cinematic sequence showed the timer with 6 seconds left or something, and then Batman in the cockpit.
Even if Heath Ledger was still alive, I absolutely would not have wanted to see him in the third film. It would serve only to cheapen the Joker. His story (within the Nolan trilogy) was done in the second film, there's nothing more for him to do. Imagine how crap it would have been to see the Joker, the top dog from The Dark Knight, reduced to a cameo like Scarecrow, being a pawn or minor villain, or being put in to make Bane out to be more of a badass (Oh look, the new villain just beat the old villain, he must be serious business). Well, maybe people don't imagine that to be crap if they wish the Joker could have been in TDKR, but for me it would be. I can't really concieve of any way to have included the Joker in any film where he wasn't the biggest and most important villain without it somewhat ruining him, and I can't think of any more stories with the Joker as the main villain that'd be worth telling after The Dark Knight already did him justice.
Why have Bane? Talia can be in there for all the larger League of Shadows stuff. Joker could still be the featured villain.
Purely from a movie standpoint, I like how it worked out. Bane was able to do things the Joker wasn't. He challeneged Batman in an important way. But I feel bothered when people say Joker couldn't have been used effectively in a third movie.
You don't think Nolan could write another Joker story that makes him into a mega powerful bad guy effectively?He probably could - just not one that involves Bane as a mega powerful bad guy as well. Then it just becomes a question of whether we want "another Joker story", or a new story. It's redundant anyway since Heath Ledger died and it would have been insane to think about casting another actor as the Joker for the next film, but not everything has to be run into the ground - The Dark Knight did the Joker justice, another film with him as the main villain would have just been more of the same (something Nolan's Btaman films haven't really done and one of the reasons they are so good), and another film with him making an appearance but not being the main villain would be worse (in my opinion) than just leaving him well enough alone.
Why have Bane? Talia can be in there for all the larger League of Shadows stuff. Joker could still be the featured villain.
Purely from a movie standpoint, I like how it worked out. Bane was able to do things the Joker wasn't. He challeneged Batman in an important way. But I feel bothered when people say Joker couldn't have been used effectively in a third movie.
lol I think at this point it's just a matter of whether or not we can move on from the Joker and see other, less perfect characters. I am perfectly fine with moving on.
Spiderman 3 suffered from TOO MANY villains. That's why that movie fucking sucked.
And also Emo Peter.
And Topher Grace as Venom was fucking stupid.
Most of the criticism of TDKR that I've seen are very valid, and I agree with most of them, but that didn't spoil the movie for me.
With that said, you do not hang a bitch on a rope and let it fix his back.
But wasn't the Joker in the prison Bane emptied?
I honestly don't know at this point if I prefer TDK or TDKR. They're very different films.
I think The Joker would be in TDKR if Ledger were still alive, yeah. Scarecrow's been in all 3 films, so why not the Joker?
Yeah, while I thought it was a bit too on-the-nose, Nolan probably didn't want everyone being all retarded about the ending like they were for Inception.
I'm not saying they all have equal presence. I'm saying Nolan probably would have made him a part of the film's narrative if Ledger were still alive.
Regardless, I'm sure we can agree that he would at least have been mentioned, if he didn't actually get screen time.
Come on, man. Work with me. I'm trying to find some common ground so we can move on.
Can we agree that Maggie Gyllenhaal is attractive?
Come on, man. Work with me. I'm trying to find some common ground so we can move on.
Can we agree that Maggie Gyllenhaal is attractive?
Hell yes we can.
Not when compare to the previous Rachel Dawes.
Come on, man. Work with me. I'm trying to find some common ground so we can move on.
Can we agree that Maggie Gyllenhaal is attractive?
Hell yes we can.
Good work.Not when compare to the previous Rachel Dawes.
No way, dude. No way.
Not when compare to the previous Rachel Dawes.
Mrs. Cruise
Mrs. Cruise ain't the top of the heap...but she's *WORLDS* cuter than Maggie. IMO...
Yeah, while I thought it was a bit too on-the-nose, Nolan probably didn't want everyone being all retarded about the ending like they were for Inception.
Inception's ending accomplishes a different purpose. Whether or not it's real isn't the point.
The point of the ending in TDKR is that Bruce is alive and realized he needed to stop being Batman for the sake of his sanity.
Yeah, while I thought it was a bit too on-the-nose, Nolan probably didn't want everyone being all retarded about the ending like they were for Inception.
Inception's ending accomplishes a different purpose. Whether or not it's real isn't the point.
The point of the ending in TDKR is that Bruce is alive and realized he needed to stop being Batman for the sake of his sanity.
I realize.
I'm just saying that with the response to the end of Inception, I can understand why Nolan tried to avoid any ambiguity with the end of TDKR.
I won't lie; for a second, when they did the 'the autopilot was fixed months ago' reveal, the first place my mind went was that Bruce knew he didn't have to die, but wanted it to be over.Yeah, while I thought it was a bit too on-the-nose, Nolan probably didn't want everyone being all retarded about the ending like they were for Inception.
Inception's ending accomplishes a different purpose. Whether or not it's real isn't the point.
The point of the ending in TDKR is that Bruce is alive and realized he needed to stop being Batman for the sake of his sanity.
I realize.
I'm just saying that with the response to the end of Inception, I can understand why Nolan tried to avoid any ambiguity with the end of TDKR.
Mrs. Cruise ain't the top of the heap...but she's *WORLDS* cuter than Maggie. IMO...
Why, how does her cup size compare?
haaaaaarrrrrveeyyyyyyyy
katie holmes is wayy hotter than maggie. why wasn't she in TDK again? against the teachings of Xenu??
I can't be the only one who laughed at Bane's Sean Connery impression! :lol
How is this an argument? Katie is a hundred times cuter than Maggie.
No idea. Anne Hathaway easily takes the cake on either.How is this an argument? Katie is a hundred times cuter than Maggie.
Katie is indeed much cuter. Katie has a "awww she's so cute, let's pat her head and lick her boobs" quality. Maggie has a "Let's take her into a dark ally somewhere, bang the hell out of her and then only call her when we want to do it again" quality.
I'm cool with both.
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS!?!?
So does anyone think that Christopher Nolan was trying to draw a parallel between Bane and his cult to the 99%ers?
No idea. Anne Hathaway easily takes the cake on either.How is this an argument? Katie is a hundred times cuter than Maggie.
Katie is indeed much cuter. Katie has a "awww she's so cute, let's pat her head and lick her boobs" quality. Maggie has a "Let's take her into a dark ally somewhere, bang the hell out of her and then only call her when we want to do it again" quality.
I'm cool with both.
WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS!?!?
So does anyone think that Christopher Nolan was trying to draw a parallel between Bane and his cult to the 99%ers?
I loved banes voice, it had a perfect sense of grandeur. It displayed that he knew he was above you, and that was what he portrayed in every other way as well.
I loved banes voice, it had a perfect sense of grandeur. It displayed that he knew he was above you, and that was what he portrayed in every other way as well.
I liked his voice but it was weirdly mixed. It sounded like Brian Blessed was shouting into the mic constantly.
I don't remember what his voice sounded like in those trailers, I'll have to rewatch.
I got most of it. But there was that scene where he's talking to bruce in the jail and I missed a bunch of stuff there.
However from what I understand, 99% of the original dialogue of his was completely unintelligible.
This might be a stupid question, but I'm assuming Bill will at least have the answer. When you know you're doing a series of movies, or even when it's only a possibility, don't actors and actresses sign a contract that would in some way lock them up for the future films? I never followed the Holmes story, but I would have assumed she would have been locked up for however long Nolan needed her.
Okay, next question, why in the the world in this instance did they not sign her for multi-movies?
Gyllenhaal >>> Holmes. The former can act.
*gets blown up*Gyllenhaal >>> Holmes. The former can act.
haaaaaaaarrrrvveeyyyyy
Gyllenhaal >>> Holmes. The former can act.
(https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5963/memebrucefoxsonar.jpg)
(https://img526.imageshack.us/img526/5963/memebrucefoxsonar.jpg):lol Yeah I always thought that when watching The Dark Knight - sure it looks good to do the moral thing, but that decision's going to look a lot more questionable in the next film when you need to find the villain to save lives again.
Did you mean to say plot hole? Because the film was full of themYeah, kinda :lol
He traveled internationally over the course of several years....not a day or two like the movie made it seem.In this, I disagree. The whole Batman in the prison/Bane taking over Gotham/Batman returning thing took place in several months. They didn't hint that Batman was back the next day, or whatever.
He traveled internationally over the course of several years....not a day or two like the movie made it seem.
He traveled internationally over the course of several years....not a day or two like the movie made it seem.
It wasn't a day or two, it was closer to a month.
I'm not sure I'd like to have it be two movies, but the passage of time definitely was not conveyed well.
It's like what was said in that Half in the Bag review. The point wasn't how he got back, the point was that he was back.
It's like what was said in that Half in the Bag review. The point wasn't how he got back, the point was that he was back.
No offense, but this is a complete and utter disrespect to the audience and the narrative. The film required you to accept too many leaps of faith. Blake knows Bruce is Batman because of a look on his face when he was a kid? Knowing...."Hey I lost my parents...so did this guy.....but look at him faking his way through the pain....he must be Batman." That's like cheating the audience. The most forced and random "love" story of all time between Bruce and Miranda? Just because she was Talia? Horrible and completely unnecessary.
Or how about the kid that Blake visits at the orphanage? He was probably around 10 years old. So, he would have been around 2 when Batman (who had only been around for about 9 months at this point) took the blame for Dent's murders and was basically labeled a terrorist. And Batman had to do this for the Dent act to succeed blah blah blah..... Yet this kid not only knows who he is, but is drawing bat symbols and hoping he comes back. WTF? That would be like being 2 years old when the Oklahoma City bombing happened and 8 years later a ten year old kid is hoping Timothy McVeigh gets released. Makes no sense.
Don't get me wrong, Nolan is one of my favorite directors. Memento, The Prestige, Inception and Batman Begins are all near perfect films to me. TDKR was just so tired and lazy to me.
It's like what was said in that Half in the Bag review. The point wasn't how he got back, the point was that he was back.
No offense, but this is a complete and utter disrespect to the audience and the narrative. The film required you to accept too many leaps of faith. Blake knows Bruce is Batman because of a look on his face when he was a kid? Knowing...."Hey I lost my parents...so did this guy.....but look at him faking his way through the pain....he must be Batman." That's like cheating the audience. The most forced and random "love" story of all time between Bruce and Miranda? Just because she was Talia? Horrible and completely unnecessary.
Or how about the kid that Blake visits at the orphanage? He was probably around 10 years old. So, he would have been around 2 when Batman (who had only been around for about 9 months at this point) took the blame for Dent's murders and was basically labeled a terrorist. And Batman had to do this for the Dent act to succeed blah blah blah..... Yet this kid not only knows who he is, but is drawing bat symbols and hoping he comes back. WTF? That would be like being 2 years old when the Oklahoma City bombing happened and 8 years later a ten year old kid is hoping Timothy McVeigh gets released. Makes no sense.
Don't get me wrong, Nolan is one of my favorite directors. Memento, The Prestige, Inception and Batman Begins are all near perfect films to me. TDKR was just so tired and lazy to me.
I don't think how he got back was nearly as big a plot hole as him appearing exactly where Cat Woman was in a massive city with no way of telling where she was beforehand.
MORE forced and random than Anikan and Amidala? I don't think so...not even by a LONG shot.
A&A was not *just* poorly written...it was forced in the sense that there was absolutely...not one single reason...for her to fall in love with him. We were presented with no endearing qualities.
"You slaughtered an entire camp of women and children? You poor tortured soul...I love you."
It was forced...and much tougher to swallow than a billionaire playboy having a one night stand with someone who is trying desperately to get into his inner circle anyway.
The film required you to accept too many leaps of faith. Blake knows Bruce is Batman because of a look on his face when he was a kid? Knowing...."Hey I lost my parents...so did this guy.....but look at him faking his way through the pain....he must be Batman."This was the main one that I felt was a bit too much. He should have had some reason for knowing that Bruce Wayne was Batman. It is pretty easy to figure it out (billionaire who's been hurt by crime returns to Gotham, and shortly afterwards a vigilante with incredibly expensive equipment and a lot of free time is running around), but we're kind of forced to assume it's a lot more difficult to figure it out in universe than it would be for us (or else everyone in Gotham would have guessed it by now). So having a character just figure it out like that makes everyone else in Gotham seem like idiots.
To people (like myself) who have never read the comics, the plot twist involving Miranda/Talia was completely unexpected.
Honestly, Batman Begins was my real introduction to Batman.Wow! You need to go watch Batman & Robin ASAP!
It's not even really about reading the comics anymore. The Talia story has been told in the cartoon and most recently in Arkham City. I just assumed people knew who she wasHer story in Arkham City relies somewhat heavily on you already knowing who she is and her relationship with Batman and Ras, so I don't think a lot of people who were first introduced to her by AC would've figure out that Miranda = Talia.
It's not even really about reading the comics anymore. The Talia story has been told in the cartoon and most recently in Arkham City. I just assumed people knew who she was
It's not even really about reading the comics anymore. The Talia story has been told in the cartoon and most recently in Arkham City. I just assumed people knew who she wasThe majority of people who saw TDKR have seen nothing but the other Batman movies.
Exactly.Don't worry, the Bane from that movie is just a glorified henchman.
I didn't even see Batman & Robin on account of it's horrific reputation. I didn't even know that Bane was in it til after TDKR was out.
Still, a very movieThis.
- I would have omitted the scene where Fox realizes that the aircraft had been set on autopilot by Bruce Wayne, and left the audience wondering whether the final Alfred scene was real or just the irrational hope of seeing his boy still alive projected onto his fantasy.
- I would have omitted the scene where Fox realizes that the aircraft had been set on autopilot by Bruce Wayne, and left the audience wondering whether the final Alfred scene was real or just the irrational hope of seeing his boy still alive projected onto his fantasy.No, just no!
- I would have omitted the scene where Fox realizes that the aircraft had been set on autopilot by Bruce Wayne, and left the audience wondering whether the final Alfred scene was real or just the irrational hope of seeing his boy still alive projected onto his fantasy.
Why?
- I would have omitted the scene where Fox realizes that the aircraft had been set on autopilot by Bruce Wayne, and left the audience wondering whether the final Alfred scene was real or just the irrational hope of seeing his boy still alive projected onto his fantasy.
Sorry, I just accidentaly the whole thing... :(Still, a very movieThis.
- I would have omitted the scene where Fox realizes that the aircraft had been set on autopilot by Bruce Wayne, and left the audience wondering whether the final Alfred scene was real or just the irrational hope of seeing his boy still alive projected onto his fantasy.
Not everything has to be Inception.
You must love Lost then.
A. Bane is the real problem with this movie.lol
C. If you pick Katie, you are wrong.
No. Because her face looks like it got beat with an ugly stick
And that differs from TDKR how...? ;DExactly.Don't worry, the Bane from that movie is just a glorified henchman.
I didn't even see Batman & Robin on account of it's horrific reputation. I didn't even know that Bane was in it til after TDKR was out.
Not understanding the Maggie Gyllenhall hate in this thread.I couldn't place the ugliness factor until I saw her nude scenes. I realized her face has the same saggy and worn out look that the rest of her does.
i liked katie. I'll take continuity from BB over the slightly better acting skills of maggie
What a great movie. I just saw it now, so maybe it has to settle a little, but my first impression was very positive. Bane really impressed me.
Right back atcha. :hifive:What a great movie. I just saw it now, so maybe it has to settle a little, but my first impression was very positive. Bane really impressed me.
(https://fc09.deviantart.net/images/i/2003/52/d/a/High_Five_emoticon)
It just annoyed me that Maggie's Rachel seemed like a very different person than Katie's Rachel, even though the two movies take place very close to each other time-wise.Yeah, if anything, the worst part isn't Katie or Maggie. It's the fact that they are both portraying a major character and, like you suggest, it really disrupts continuity.
Remember that part where she blew up?
That was awesome.
This Nolan Batman trilogy should go down as one of the all-time classics, up there with the Star Wars OT, first three Indy films, Back to the Future
and LOTR.
and LOTR.
*activates flameshield*
LOTR sucks.
and LOTR.
*activates flameshield*
LOTR sucks.
Death or exile?
YARRR :yarr THERE BE SPOILERS HERE
In The Dark Knight Rises - Jim Gordon seems surprised that Bruce Wayne is Batman.
I am confused. I always thought Jim Gordon knew who Batman was ( at least in The Dark Knight ).
Guess I wasn't paying enough attention !
:yarr YARR TIS SAFE NOW
(https://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/ermh95/onyd.jpg)This Nolan Batman trilogy should go down as one of the all-time classics, up there with the Star Wars OT, first three Indy films, Back to the Future
Agreed.and LOTR.
*activates flameshield*
LOTR sucks.
How did Bane know Batman's identity?
Oh that's right. But how did the League know? IIRC, Qui-Gon knew Batman was Bruce the moment he saw him.
The one thing that always was a bit weird is how doesn't anyone else make that connection? This Batman character appears just as billionaire, infinitely loved by Gotham Bruce Wayne returns.
BB took a lot from Year One, they should've had some scene like when Gordon goes to question Wayne on the comic.
It was incredibly easy for Lucius to make that connection though.
If anything I think the people should have been suspicious when Batman vanished for 8 (?) years and Bruce Wayne didn't show himself for the same amount of time. Someone must have found it odd.Couple that with Batman appearing when Bruce returns... I mean, people are stupid in Gotham. :lol
This Nolan Batman trilogy should go down as one of the all-time classics, up there with the Star Wars OT, first three Indy films, Back to the Future and LOTR.
Here we go again
https://www.examiner.com/article/man-arrested-bringing-weapons-into-ohio-theater-showing-the-dark-knight-rises
Here we go againAt least they caught it in time.
https://www.examiner.com/article/man-arrested-bringing-weapons-into-ohio-theater-showing-the-dark-knight-rises
but what if he had it due to the aurora shooting? as a precaution if it ever went down again in a theater he was in? im not saying i would do it, but it could be an excuse
Here we go againAt least they caught it in time.
https://www.examiner.com/article/man-arrested-bringing-weapons-into-ohio-theater-showing-the-dark-knight-rises
Whether or not the suspect intended to do anything in this case, he can go fuck himself. Either he's another deranged sick bastard, or a fucking idiot. There's literally no good reason to bring a gun into a damn movie theater.
Well, making thinking Batman is Bruce Wayne based solely on that is kind of a stretch to me. But yeah, I'd think it'd be semi-obvious to at least some people that Batman has a connection to Wayne Industries. Like, there's literally no one in Wayne Industries or in the government who's seen the tumbler before and made the connection? Even if it was just a prototype, it's still something that would have directly involved dozens if not hundreds of engineers, businessmen, soliders, officers, and other gov't bureaucrats, not to mention plenty of other people who were still aware of it.
Here we go againAt least they caught it in time.
https://www.examiner.com/article/man-arrested-bringing-weapons-into-ohio-theater-showing-the-dark-knight-rises
Whether or not the suspect intended to do anything in this case, he can go fuck himself. Either he's another deranged sick bastard, or a fucking idiot. There's literally no good reason to bring a gun into a damn movie theater.
Just saw it again. It wasn't as exciting when I knew everything that was going to happen.
Just saw it again. It wasn't as exciting when I knew everything that was going to happen.
That's typically how movies work.
:rollin :rollinJust saw it again. It wasn't as exciting when I knew everything that was going to happen.
That's typically how movies work.
Maybe he wanted to have a defense in the event a guy started throwing tear gas and pulling out an AR-15
The one thing that always was a bit weird is how doesn't anyone else make that connection? This Batman character appears just as billionaire, infinitely loved by Gotham Bruce Wayne returns.Cracked had a good video about that a few weeks ago;
Just saw it for a third time, it's gotten better with every viewing for me. The one gripe I have is with the Bruce/Selina dance scene......And that's because there's a much better Bruce/Selina dance scene in Batman Returns imho......Everything else is wonderful.
The first half of Begins is very cool. The ending is so anticlimatic though.I agree.
Just saw it for a third time, it's gotten better with every viewing for me. The one gripe I have is with the Bruce/Selina dance scene......And that's because there's a much better Bruce/Selina dance scene in Batman Returns imho......Everything else is wonderful.
I dunno, Anne's Selina came off as WAY more creepy, and terrifying in that scene than Michelle's did.
Also I like that this Catwoman was just a very skilled thief and not some secretary who was licked back to life by cats.
Finally saw it. Damn entertaining though a little too much deus ex machina for my taste. And by that I mean a lot of much.
Are you serious? Every single time a character needed to be somewhere, they were there, especially when there was no possible way for them to know where other people were in danger, etc.
Maybe deus ex machina isn't the right term but literally no one was in any real danger.
I mean how the hell would Batman know that Gordon had been "exiled"? He gets back to the city, suits up and has been out of the loop so long but somehow knows exactly where to go.
Are you serious? Every single time a character needed to be somewhere, they were there, especially when there was no possible way for them to know where other people were in danger, etc. Maybe deus ex machina isn't the right term but literally no one was in any real danger. I mean how the hell would Batman know that Gordon had been "exiled"? He gets back to the city, suits up and has been out of the loop so long but somehow knows exactly where to go.
Are you serious? Every single time a character needed to be somewhere, they were there, especially when there was no possible way for them to know where other people were in danger, etc. Maybe deus ex machina isn't the right term but literally no one was in any real danger. I mean how the hell would Batman know that Gordon had been "exiled"? He gets back to the city, suits up and has been out of the loop so long but somehow knows exactly where to go.
He's a detective. Maybe he followed him? He needed to find Gordon one way or another. So he was going to find out where he was, it just so happens he was on the ice.
And I avoided as much discussion about the movie as possible before watching it, so I knew anything could happen. When Batman first fought Bane, I was honestly considering that he'd kill batman and that Gordon-Levitt would somehow take over the suit. To me at least, in that moment Bruce Wayne was in real danger.
When Batman first fought Bane, I was honestly considering that he'd kill batman and that Gordon-Levitt would somehow take over the suit. To me at least, in that moment Bruce Wayne was in real danger.I felt like that too - even though I had seen the "Your punishment must be more severe" stuff in adverts already.
Hathaway is gorgeous. She was one of the movie's highlights for me, TBH.
Hathaway is gorgeous. She was one of the movie's highlights for me, TBH.Couldn't agree more.
Hathaway is gorgeous. She was one of the movie's highlights for me, TBH.
Well yeah - seeing as Michelle Pfeiffer was about 90 when she was catwoman.What the fuck?
She looked like she had lived to the end of each of her nine lives.
:hat
Well yeah - seeing as Michelle Pfeiffer was about 90 when she was catwoman.What the fuck?
She looked like she had lived to the end of each of her nine lives.
:hat
Michelle Pfeiffer was HAWT in Batman Returns.
A wonderful riff on the original: https://www.cracked.com/article_20012_if-dark-knight-rises-was-10-times-shorter-more-honest.html
Most of the criticism of TDKR that I've seen are very valid, and I agree with most of them, but that didn't spoil the movie for me.
With that said, you do not hang a bitch on a rope and let it fix his back.
"oh, I see that there's a vertebrae sticking out of your back, let me just jam it back in with my fist, ok all better"
Yeah, I rolled my eyes, but I still love the movie.
But wasn't the Joker in the prison Bane emptied?
No, regular criminals go to Black Gate, the crazy ones go to Arkham.
Lastly, what is the deal with that bump on Marion Cotillard's forhead? Ew! Couldn't stop looking at it and being distracted every time she was onscreen. Could they not have cast someone who is not a unicorn for the role?
I heard somewhere that after the Dent Act was 'initiated' or whatever they moved all Arkham inmates to Blackgate as well. Anyone else heard this?
Also, was there really a Bane/Talia love interest? I know they said they "loved" each other during the reveal sequence, but I didn't take it as a romantic love. I saw it more as a deep caretaker/ward or big-brother/little-sister type love, but maybe I'm mistaken.
I heard somewhere that after the Dent Act was 'initiated' or whatever they moved all Arkham inmates to Blackgate as well. Anyone else heard this?
https://nukethefridge.com/2012/07/24/the-jokers-whereabouts-discovered-during-the-dark-knight-rises/?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_27265
so yeah
I've read from quite a few sources that the Joker is the one and only inmate at Arkham, they just never mentioned it in the film, obviously.Yeah I've heard that too, and it's really cool.
I've read from quite a few sources that the Joker is the one and only inmate at Arkham, they just never mentioned it in the film, obviously.Yeah I've heard that too, and it's really cool.
But then I have also heard that there was a scene that was 'storyboarded' for this movie, but never filmed obviously, that shows that when all the other prisoners of Blackgate was set free one prison door remained locked. Then the prisoner inside walked up to the glass, scratched it a little and then turned around to reveal it was the Joker.
Is there any truth in this at all?
Hypothesizing about all this is rather pointless.
didn't ultimately matter given the fact he turned out to be a mere henchman.
didn't ultimately matter given the fact he turned out to be a mere henchman.
I wouldn't say he was a henchman, the best way I'd put it is that he's the MAIN villain but Talia is the HEAD villain.....kind of like co-conspirators. My friends and I argue about this quite frequently lol. Then again, just my opinion.
didn't ultimately matter given the fact he turned out to be a mere henchman.
I wouldn't say he was a henchman, the best way I'd put it is that he's the MAIN villain but Talia is the HEAD villain.....kind of like co-conspirators. My friends and I argue about this quite frequently lol. Then again, just my opinion.
I think if they were going to do the Talia being the leader of the villains twist, then they missed an opportunity to do it better by never showing anything of them operating together. Talia is revealed as the villain, then Bane dies and the heroes go and chase Talia. Their relationship and power dynamics are basically left to the imagination of the viewer - was Talia the brains of the operation while Bane was just doing as he was told and acting like he was in charge, was it a partnership of equals, or was Bane really in control but doing things to serve Talia because he cares for and is protective of her (or as repayment for getting him out of the prison). I was pleased to see he was just going to kill Batman even though Talia had said not to, because that kind of showed that he wasn't just a mere henchman who did what he was told, but then he gets blasted away and they just focus on Talia so we don't see much more to establish that.didn't ultimately matter given the fact he turned out to be a mere henchman.
I wouldn't say he was a henchman, the best way I'd put it is that he's the MAIN villain but Talia is the HEAD villain.....kind of like co-conspirators. My friends and I argue about this quite frequently lol. Then again, just my opinion.
Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head. Referring to him as a mere henchman really misses the point.
I think if they were going to do the Talia being the leader of the villains twist, then they missed an opportunity to do it better by never showing anything of them operating together. Talia is revealed as the villain, then Bane dies and the heroes go and chase Talia. Their relationship and power dynamics are basically left to the imagination of the viewer
Came across a copy of Entertainment today which had an interview with Chris Nolan. When asked why he didn't mention the Joker in the new film, he said that he didn't want to trivialize the tragedy by explaining away his absence. He said other directors might have done something different, but he felt, given his relationship to Ledger, that that was the right thing for him to do.
I think if they were going to do the Talia being the leader of the villains twist, then they missed an opportunity to do it better by never showing anything of them operating together. Talia is revealed as the villain, then Bane dies and the heroes go and chase Talia. Their relationship and power dynamics are basically left to the imagination of the viewer
I see what you are saying, but I think that was a good choice rather than a missed opportunity. Bane certainly portrayed more than enough independent strength and thinking throughout the movie. And his statement of "I am the League of Shadows" says enough about his opinion of himself. I think seeing more of him and Talia operating together would only have further muddled things. It doesn't really matter whether they were strictly equals, whether they were mostly equals, but he took orders because it better served their common goals, or whatever. What matters is that he was an incredibly formidable enemy because he was both very intellectual and brutally powerful.
An awesome wallpaper I found of the Dark Knight trilogy. For the people that saw Rises multiple times was it better the second? I have a good feeling I'll like it better whenever I see it again.
(https://vampjezzc.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/trilogy-poster.jpg)
I'm definitely waiting for a decent bluray boxset, I saw special editions for Begins and TDK but I'd prefer a single boxset with all three films and some special features.
Ugh. Joe Levitt was on some stupid american talk show and the host was all like
" Derp - can't wait for the Robin movie which is obviously happening since the end of TDKR set it up..."
:facepalm: Just.........*sigh*......
1. NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A SEQUEL FFS
2.TDKR DIDN'T SET IT UP - YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE ENDING.
3.THE MOST OBVIOUS - HE'D BE BATMAN NOT ROBIN .
I have no idea how to react to that. I hate reboots just in general. But even more, I hate reboots that are so soon. And a reboot makes no sense whatsoever when a series is so consistently good from start to finish as Nolan's. It just makes no sense whatsoever and leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they are even doing it. But on the other hand, it's Batman, so I'll see it regardless. I'm so confused...
Chris Nolan is obviously done with the series, so if there is going to be another Batman movie (before the Justice League flick), I sincerely doubt it will have anything to do with Nolan's continuity.
I really can't wait for them to make a Robin movie. That'd be great.
I have no idea how to react to that. I hate reboots just in general. But even more, I hate reboots that are so soon. And a reboot makes no sense whatsoever when a series is so consistently good from start to finish as Nolan's. It just makes no sense whatsoever and leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they are even doing it. But on the other hand, it's Batman, so I'll see it regardless. I'm so confused...
No. But Warners have already confirmed they're "rebooting" Batman again.Except there's differences between what a reboot and a remake are.
I really cannot stand that term "rebooting".
It's a remake. Call it a remake.
It's like giving everything 21st century terminology maks it sound "cool".
Like - It's as if everytime FOX cancels a show - they're not "cancelling" it - they're " Force Quitting " it or " Uninstalling " it.
It's a remake or a sequel as far as i'm concerned. The word Reboot has to stop.
I have no idea how to react to that. I hate reboots just in general. But even more, I hate reboots that are so soon. And a reboot makes no sense whatsoever when a series is so consistently good from start to finish as Nolan's. It just makes no sense whatsoever and leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they are even doing it. But on the other hand, it's Batman, so I'll see it regardless. I'm so confused...
Batman Begins is not a remake of Batman '89, which was not a remake of Batman: The Movie. They're called reboots because they relaunch an established franchise. There's a fairly large difference.
I have no idea how to react to that. I hate reboots just in general. But even more, I hate reboots that are so soon. And a reboot makes no sense whatsoever when a series is so consistently good from start to finish as Nolan's. It just makes no sense whatsoever and leaves a bad taste in my mouth that they are even doing it. But on the other hand, it's Batman, so I'll see it regardless. I'm so confused...
The problem with doing it so soon is that it can't be creative.
The Nolan Batman movies are a direct reaction to the current state of American life and American civilization.
How are you going to make another Batman series so soon after the last one that also comments on post 9/11 and post financial crash society? I don't really think it can be done. If they waited a decade or two, society would change and provide a new cultural zeitgeist for Batman to draw on.
I'm glad that it passed the Billion mark. It deserves it.This.
I'm glad that it passed the Billion mark. It deserves it.This.
It's especially impressive considering that it didn't have expensive 3D ticket prices to boost its total.
Legions of Gotham Op-Ed: Christopher Nolan's Batman Universe Needs to Continue
The Dark Knight trilogy is too compelling of a world to let sit idle, even if Warner Brothers reboots the story and Batman on the silver screen.
By BRIAN HEATON
Director Christopher Nolan has been adamant that “The Dark Knight Rises” marks the end of his involvement with the Batman movie franchise. But after ending the trilogy with some big question marks, the Gotham envisioned by Nolan has to continue, even if it is relegated to officially licensed novels and comic adaptions.
From the revelation that John Blake is Robin and Bruce Wayne leaving him directions to the Bat Cave, to Bruce fixing the Batman signal for Commissioner Gordon on the roof of Gotham Police Department headquarters, Nolan set the stage for his story of Batman to live on. The question is, will it?
DC Comics and Warner Brothers seem hellbent on rebooting the franchise on the silver screen, even if that introduction to a new Batman character might not happen until the rumored Justice League film gets made. But while Nolan's gritty, dark depiction of Batman and Bruce Wayne was popular, I highly doubt any reboot of the character will be in the same vein.
Some may view that as a problem. But I see it as an opportunity for Warner Brothers and fans to have the best of both worlds. A continuation of Nolan's Gotham in novels and special graphic novels can give those who are loyal to a more realistic take on the Batman character a broader world to explore and enjoy. At the same time, a new feature film reboot will give Warner Brothers a chance to continue capitalizing on the Caped Crusader's immense popularity, without destroying the integrity of Nolan's vision.
The idea would also open up a fiction novel market for Batman that aside from a handful of books, has never been adequately explored. Tie-ins with specifically-written comics and even specialized online content could make such a move even more profitable.
Nolan's films have transcended audiences. The people going to see “Batman Begins,” “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises” weren't all Batman fans or superhero geeks. Batman was presented in such a realistic and compelling manner, people went to the theater to be entertained by a dramatic story. That needs to be recognized and capitalized on by DC Comics. The market for Batman isn't just run-of-the-mill comic book fans any longer.
In addition, the story is wide open for more adventures. There are a ton of loose ends that were never tied up in the trilogy. The Joker's whereabouts – very carefully avoided by Nolan in the final film – are unknown. All the mobsters and villains Batman put away are back on the streets and Gotham is inevitably going need its Dark Knight again once the city is rebuilt.
Some might argue that Batman intended John Blake to take over the mantle of the Bat, therefore bringing the story full circle. I disagree. It was clear to me that by revealing Blake's real name to be “Robin,” that Nolan intended that Batman wouldn't be replaced by Blake. Rather, Blake will be the Caped Crusader's understudy once he returns. No, Bruce doesn't want to be Batman forever. But any Bat-fan worth his or her salt knows the fling with Selina Kyle won't last.
Bruce Wayne being “dead,” could be spun into a big story about how the eccentric billionaire faked his death and how the money he lost was due to fraudulent transactions. After a period of time his fortune – minus the contents of Wayne Manor, the mansion and grounds -- might be restored. The story would fit the playboy persona of Bruce Wayne quite easily.
The Bat Cave still exists, Bruce could get his penthouse again, and as far as we know, the Bunker is also still active. Nolan's Batman world is very much alive and far from concluded.
I'm not suggesting that DC Comics and Warner Brothers re-use Nolan's Batman template for a new movie with new actors cast in familiar roles. Like any Batman fan, I expect them to reboot the entire franchise and to a degree, I embrace that. Getting a fresh take on the character is exciting.
But The Dark Knight trilogy was a cultural phenomenon that spanned Bat-fans and general movie-goers alike. It crossed boundaries and connected with people unlike any other superhero film ever made. If DC Comics is smart, they'll recognize that, take heed of other successful officially licensed continuations such as Star Wars and Star Trek and allow Nolan's vision of Batman and Gotham City to live on through the fans.
From the Bat-Computer at THE LEGION fan network at 8:36 AM
I read on batman-news.com that Justice League is coming out in 2015 and then they're rebooting the batman franchise after that.
Or any other character that isn't name Superman or Batman.
Why have I only just realised that two characters hanging off the back of a Hercules in flight is in The Dark Knight as well ? ! :-\
Why have I only just realised that two characters hanging off the back of a Hercules in flight is in The Dark Knight as well ? ! :-\
Huh?
1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. Batman
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman Returns
7. Batman and Robin
Not really, but to each their own.
Dark Knight
Batman
Batman Begins
Batman Returns
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin (though, it's so bad I've either purged it from my memory, or never have seen it start-to-finish)
I'm totally with Jammindude on TDKR... they just stretched the "shaaww... as if" factor way too much in too many scenario's. The only thing good about TDKR was the College Humour skit that resulted. One of the funniest things I've ever watched.
Watching The Dark Knight on MTV right now.
Even after dozens of viewings, my mouth still drops open at Ledger's performance. I still say....greatest movie villain in cinema history.
Yeah I'd probably go with this, possibly swap 2 and 3 around.1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. Batman
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman Returns
7. Batman and Robin
Dead on Jimny.
Yeah I'd probably go with this, possibly swap 2 and 3 around.1. The Dark Knight
2. Batman Begins
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. Batman
5. Batman Forever
6. Batman Returns
7. Batman and Robin
Dead on Jimny.
Watching The Dark Knight on MTV right now.
Even after dozens of viewings, my mouth still drops open at Ledger's performance. I still say....greatest movie villain in cinema history.
He's definitely up there. What I love about him is the unpredictability of his acting. Seeing it for the first time was especially fascinating, because you never knew what he would do next. As soon as he showed up on screen, he just captured the audience.
Watching The Dark Knight on MTV right now.
Even after dozens of viewings, my mouth still drops open at Ledger's performance. I still say....greatest movie villain in cinema history.
He's definitely up there. What I love about him is the unpredictability of his acting. Seeing it for the first time was especially fascinating, because you never knew what he would do next. As soon as he showed up on screen, he just captured the audience.
I'll never forget seeing "the pencil trick" in the theater for the first time. I've never in my life experienced anything like that feeling before, or since. It was as if the barometric pressure went out of the theater. It's the only time I can remember being a part of such a collective experience of uncomfortable shock. No one was quite sure of what they had just seen...and they weren't sure how to react.
After the opening scenes with the airplane in Rises you complain that the "back is broken and healed by push-ups" scenario is unrealistic? :laugh:Yes, because the opening plane scene is dumb but entertaining, it's typical 'action movie silliness' and I can generally roll with it or ignore it if the surrounding movie is good, but the back-breaking is just dumb. And it's not as if it's the only example, it's just one of the more egregious examples.
The scarecrow screen tested to play batman before getting his actual role. Here's him wearing the Val Kilmer batsuit screen testing as batman and bruce wayne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6dIHT2Bry8
It's crazy that Tom hardy is massive as Bane and imposing as fuck and as Shinzon he's a campy dweeb.
The scarecrow screen tested to play batman before getting his actual role. Here's him wearing the Val Kilmer batsuit screen testing as batman and bruce wayne.Cillian Murphy is awesome, but Bruce Wayne/Batman he is not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6dIHT2Bry8
It's crazy that Tom hardy is massive as Bane and imposing as fuck and as Shinzon he's a campy dweeb.
Batman and Robin has a 3.7 score at IMDB lol
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/
Batman and Robin has a 3.7 score at IMDB lol
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118688/
:facepalm:
WTF?
Cillian Murphy is awesome, but Bruce Wayne/Batman he is not.
I also never even realized Tom Hardy was Shinzon.
I'm also a huge fan of Robin, and one of those folks that believe his addition is vital to the mental stability of Bruce Wayne/Batman. So the fact Nolan included Blake, and then ended with him finding the Bat Cave, leaves it very open to the fact that "Robin" is born, or Nightwing is born. And also (although I personally don't find it likely, but it IS an option) Blake follows in the footsteps and becomes Batman. I don't think the latter makes much sense, however. Because there was no point in Nolan revealing Blake's real first name as Robin, had he planned on Blake becoming Batman. Batman, with some minor deviations in the comics, IS Bruce Wayne.All true. But as far as the possibility of him becoming Batman, I don't write it off. I think Nolan intentionally left it vague and threw out enough nuggets for fans to realistically take it any direction they want, including him becoming Batman, despite the Robin name reveal. I haven't seen anything indicating that Nolan was affirmatively trying to convey any particular one of those possibilities or that he had any one specifically in mind, and I personally feel like he intentionally left all possibilities open for speculation (although there is certainly more meat available to argue some over others). But, hey, the fact that we can even credibly have the debate means he did a good job of executing on his intent to leave it open ended, right?
But the beauty is that you can take it anywhere. Such a great filmmaker, and the best ever Batman films. For me personally, I don't think they'll ever be topped.
I saw Inception in the theater, and I liked it, but I've never had any desire to watch it again. And that's how I feel about most Nolan movies, actually. They're just so damn long.
My only complaint about Inception is that, given its nature, it really lacks a huge imagination which would have made it better.
I have never seen Inception.It's pretty good. You should see it.
I have never seen Inception.
I know. For some reason, it just hasn't happened. Missed it in theaters. And seeing movies after the fact in this day and age is a lot more complicated than it used to be. Since traditional video rental stores no longer exist, if it isn't a new release such that Redbox has it, and it isn't available for streaming on Netflix or Amazon Prime, it's cumbersome to find a reasonably-priced means of watching movies. I'm sure I will see it eventually.I have never seen Inception.It's pretty good. You should see it.
I can't find a plot hole in it, it's so well written. A true cinematic masterpiece.
I'm sure I will see it eventually.
I get it. Happens quite a bit to me.I know. For some reason, it just hasn't happened. Missed it in theaters. And seeing movies after the fact in this day and age is a lot more complicated than it used to be. Since traditional video rental stores no longer exist, if it isn't a new release such that Redbox has it, and it isn't available for streaming on Netflix or Amazon Prime, it's cumbersome to find a reasonably-priced means of watching movies. I'm sure I will see it eventually.I have never seen Inception.It's pretty good. You should see it.
They might have explained it as not wanting their subject to know he was in a dream.Well yeah, exactly. That was the entire plot of the film!
Fisher was supposed to think he was dreaming in the next level down.
If he'd pulled out a dragon there and then - Fisher's sub conscious would be all over them.
I hope Nolan hasn't ditched sci fi to go and chase Oscars.
Oh a gritty war movie. Greeeat. :yawn:
I'm incredibly excited for Dunkirk. It's something new from him and interested to see what he does with it.Same here.
I hope Nolan hasn't ditched sci fi to go and chase Oscars.
Oh a gritty war movie. Greeeat. :yawn:
This is like saying you don't want Jim Carrey to act in a serious role.
I can't bear war films. Doesn't matter who's in it or who directed it. I could not care less.
I hope Nolan hasn't ditched sci fi to go and chase Oscars.
Oh a gritty war movie. Greeeat. :yawn:
This is like saying you don't want Jim Carrey to act in a serious role.
Nope.
I can't bear war films. Doesn't matter who's in it or who directed it. I could not care less.
And I watched the Dunkirk trailer. It looks as boring as fuck.
Nolans best was Memento. Pure brilliance in writing and directing
War films made correctly are amazing. However, as with every other genre, most of them suck.
Nolans best was Memento. Pure brilliance in writing and directing
I just wanted to highlight the only correct post in this thread.
I don't think that's true. There are some people that really get into certain genres, and they watch anything that comes out in that genre, regardless of whether it is good or not. Could be war films, or sci-fi. My father-in-law loves Westerns, that is practically all he watches.War films made correctly are amazing. However, as with every other genre, most of them suck.
Yeah but people really have soft spots for them, cuz most of them are true and accurate/emotional portrayals.
Speaking of Batmans....
I asked my 13 yr old Brother if he wants to see The LEGO Batman on Friday with me :)
He said yes so If he is allowed - which he should - we both saw Rogue One together - it's a brodate ! Literally 😄😄