'The Dark Knight Rises'

Samon Fish said:
Nolan's story hasn't been about an ad infinitum Batman legend; it's been about fixing Gotham. As Wayne says to Neeson in Begins, "Gotham isn't beyond saving." It's about pulling it back.

Batman's death =/= bad guys winning. His death would surely be symbolic of an end to his necessity.
Click to expand...

I kind of considered that, but I mean, how long until the Joker breaks out and chaos reigns anew? :p
 
True enough, but I suppose for story purposes we can go with the idea that he's simply not coming back. And besides - what is he without Batman?
 
The latest rumours going around are that while Hardy is playing Bane, Hugo Strange will still be present, played by Robin Williams.

I actually think this would be excellent, and is pretty plausible. Williams has expressed huge interest in playing in a Batman movie (having been screwed out of it twice before). Plus he has worked with Nolan before, and we all know how he tends to use actors that he likes multiple times.

The only reason I've heard that it would be false is that it would "add too many villains" to the movie, which I don't think is true, because it implies that Catwoman is going to be a villain, and I don't think that's the direction it'll go. Catwoman is better as an anti-hero.
 
This movie will be the shit. Would be awesome to have a nearly flawless trilogy.
 
I really hope they bring back feel of Gotham that the begins had.
 
I don't; it was probably the worst part of that film, alongside its ropey plot and Katie Holmes addled performances. Gotham never felt like a city in Begins. It was just a claustrophobic mess that never really knew what it wanted to be. It was a schizophrenic mess. Whilst aesthetically I prefer Burton's art-deco Gotham to the modern metropolis we saw in TDK, I do think the latter was used to better effect. It told a better story: the story of Gotham the city.

EDIT: Haven't we ah, had this argument Sedako?
 
The Monkey said:
This movie will be the shit. Would be awesome to have a nearly flawless trilogy.
Click to expand...

Watch the first one again. It's hardly flawless (but not a bad film, just pretty average really).

Count how many times someone has a line or monologue about having to pick yourself up after falling down. Every single main character in the film has that line.
 
Sparta said:
Watch the first one again. It's hardly flawless (but not a bad film, just pretty average really).
Click to expand...

I didn't like Batman Begins, I watched it for the first time quite recently, so obviously after countless viewings of TDK.
BB feels more like a comic book movie; ninjas, trains, poisoning the water supply, even Scarecrow seems a bit a more comic villainous than Ledger's Joker.
Not to mention Rachel, what happened there? I never even knew she had two different actresses.
 
Samon Fish said:
I don't; it was probably the worst part of that film, alongside its ropey plot and Katie Holmes addled performances. Gotham never felt like a city in Begins. It was just a claustrophobic mess that never really knew what it wanted to be. It was a schizophrenic mess. Whilst aesthetically I prefer Burton's art-deco Gotham to the modern metropolis we saw in TDK, I do think the latter was used to better effect. It told a better story: the story of Gotham the city.

EDIT: Haven't we ah, had this argument Sedako?
Click to expand...

We might have, as I've held this stance before. I do agree that Burton's films have the perfect atmosphere for Gotham, and I really disliked how Dark Knight seemed to abandon any shred of what makes Gotham so unique. Hopefully the third one strikes a happy balance between space and atmosphere.
 
Sedako said:
We might have, as I've held this stance before. I do agree that Burton's films have the perfect atmosphere for Gotham, and I really disliked how Dark Knight seemed to abandon any shred of what makes Gotham so unique. Hopefully the third one strikes a happy balance between space and atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I agree so much. It works more for The Dark Knight when they sell that idea of The Joker as a terrorist in an American city, but overall their use of Chicago really makes it feel like, you know, Chicago, and not Gotham. The atmosphere in Burton's films is brilliant, he really gets that gothic architecture going on, which is how the city should be portrayed.
 
Sparta said:
Watch the first one again. It's hardly flawless (but not a bad film, just pretty average really).

Count how many times someone has a line or monologue about having to pick yourself up after falling down. Every single main character in the film has that line.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Begins isn't bad, just mediocre. As someone said, it's your average comic-book movie that's barely better than the likes of Iron Man.

Sedako said:
We might have, as I've held this stance before. I do agree that Burton's films have the perfect atmosphere for Gotham, and I really disliked how Dark Knight seemed to abandon any shred of what makes Gotham so unique. Hopefully the third one strikes a happy balance between space and atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that.
 
I should watch Begins again, because I really don't remember much bad about it. I just remember it not being as overt as TDK, which I don't think is a bad thing.
There was a lot of lame, "pick yourself up after falling down lines", but I'm pretty sure TDK had it's share of overused lines as well. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm just thinking about how overused they became once they were integrated into pop culture.
 
The only lame repeated lines I remember in TDK were the coin bits with "I make my own luck", but those weren't really that bad. I think Begins is pretty good towards the beginning and end, but I thought the pacing and plot escalation was pretty jumpy and forced. Also, Katie Holmes and teenage Bruce.
 
That's what I dislike about Batman Begins, the pacing. Then again, they had to get a lot of back story in.
 
So, looks like Nolan is bringin the cast of Inception, now, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
 
morgs said:
That's what I dislike about Batman Begins, the pacing. Then again, they had to get a lot of back story in.
Click to expand...

To be fair the pacing is pretty hectic in just about any Nolan movie. I've always thought it was his biggest fault, and it usually comes down to the fact that he tries to pack his scripts with as much shit as possible, leaving them very little breathing room. Dark Knight could have been a hell of a lot more succinct, the entire third act is probably my least favourite part.

That said, I really need to rewatch Memento...
 
both the dark knight and inception are films i remember most by the fact that they never ever seem to slow down, people are constantly talking whilst the camera orbits them constantly, with dramatic music even in the most subtle parts of the film.

otherwise, they're alright, just yeah he needs to slow the **** down sometimes
 
Yeah he's a bit too comfortable and sloppy in this "blockbuster" directing mode he's gotten stuck into. I really like the Dark Knight, but now I can only rewatch it for the scenes with the Joker, most of which don't feature constant camera movements, rapid editing and a perpetual score. In other words, the few scenes in the film where he actually gives his actors some real opportunity to act.
 
Bad^Hat said:
Dark Knight could have been a hell of a lot more succinct, the entire third act is probably my least favourite part.
Click to expand...

I honestly just stop watching when the ferry boat stuff starts. I find it too far fetched that people would just wait around for everybody to be blown up.
 
I won't argue that the pacing was a little loco in The Dark Knight (my point with Begins was more the plot progression than anything), but I think you guys are exaggerating the over-direction. I watched it about a week ago and I remember plenty of straightforward scenes, mostly of Ledger and Eckhart, a few with Bale, where the characters simply shined without any interference on Nolan's part.
 
Someone mentioned Strange might be in this. That'd be two villains that figured out Batman's identity. A connection here? People are speculating he dies in this. If his identity is revealed it wouldn't be unsurprising.
 
I just finished Batman (1989), which was rather lame, honestly, and Batman Returns - a film I find a lot better than Begins.
 
I rewatched the 1989 Batman a while ago and it is seriously one of the stupidest Batman movies I have ever seen, right up there with Batman & Robin.

But, I'll be damned if it wasn't fun to watch.
 
Samon Fish said:
I just finished Batman (1989), which was rather lame, honestly, and Batman Returns - a film I find a lot better than Begins.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I think both of them are lame. The only reason I tolerate Batman Returns is because of Michelle Pfeiffer.
I do like the art direction in those films, but the actual story and most of all the vilains, are just silly. The joker in TDK is creepy and convincing as a threat, whereas the joker portrayed by Nicholson is ridiculous.

Also the claustrophobic feeling of Batman Begins is most definitely present in Tim Burton's films. The first two batman movies just don't give the sense that it's taking place in a large city. It just feels like a goth style vilage/town that for some strange reason has a few skyscrapers in it.
 
Robin Williams as Prof. Strange, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Robin.
 
Actually, Robin would be a pretty good answer to the question posed earlier - what would happen to Gotham without Batman?
 
I'm pretty sure that it was either Bale or Nolan that said they definitely weren't bringing Robin to the films.
 
I think Bale just said that if Nolan DID, he'd be out.
 
Bad^Hat said:
what would happen to Gotham without Batman?
Click to expand...

Well I don't know... maybe just maybe the crime fighting might be taken care of by...




THE ****ING POLICE!


I mean what the hell are they doing? Too busy eating doughnuts?
 
Red tape etc. SOMETIMES THEY NEED A MAN WHO CAN OPERATE come on surely you've heard this spiel before. :p
 
Plus as we saw in TDK the police is easily infiltrated and compromised.
 
My main problem with TDK was how easily the Joker could acquire henchmen. Who in his right mind would work for that lunatic? And it's not like he could pay them all that much, seeing as how he burned the mob's money. It was also a bit ridiculous how he was the only one to survive the explosion at the police stations.
 
I can't decide if the Joker's plan was always to get caught, or if that plan was part of a contingency, of a contingency, of a contingency plan so that he'd at least get the Chinese banker with all the mob's money if he didn't get Batman/Harvey Dent.

It doesn't really bother me that much, as that whole sequence is probably the best part of the film, but I've always wondered about that. Also, it's a little odd that after escaping the police station, he can just drive off in a police car erratically down the street and not get caught.

Eh, who gives a shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Omnomnick
Examining The Files Of "SteamVR Performance Test" & "Aperture Robot Repair"
Replies
27
Views
91K
MFL
MFL
Kakashi
Mass Effect: The Movie
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Blackthorn
Blackthorn
Hectic Glenn
The Rising Interview
Replies
0
Views
2K
Hectic Glenn
Hectic Glenn
MRG
Drakensang: The Dark Eye
Replies
26
Views
2K
Lucid
Lucid
Munro
Elysium 2028
Replies
0
Views
2K
Munro
Munro
Back
Top