[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (2.0)

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I hate gimmicks like that. Show everyone the trailer FFS. I had to suffer through TOTAL RECALL and a Will Ferrell movie.

TOTAL RECALL got absolutely zero buzz in the audience. I have a feeling it's going to be an even bigger bomb than the one Batman had to ditch at the end of TDKR.

By the way, whatever happened to the "earthquake machine" angle of the story? I had read rumors that Bane was going to have some sort of machine that caused an earthquake. Was that ever true? If so, Nolan must have ditched that plot angle somewhere in the filming of the movie, or in post-production, because early trailers for the film seemed to indicate that a quake was taking place (things were falling and cracking apart; unless the falling debris was meant to be allegorical).

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

The real concern I have is training. They showed Blake as a capable detective, and he certainly has courage and a good heart. But is he physically up to it?

Blake was in a boys' home and forster care. He may have even spent time on the streets. He makes it pretty clear that he lived on the rough side of town as a child. You could reasonably come up with an explanation that he learned how to take care of himself based on his upbringing.

If Warner Bros. were to pursue a Batman film with John Blake as Batman, then I think it's important that his Batman is as different from Wayne's Batman as Blake himself is different from Bruce Wayne. They both represent the same things, but they can go about it in different ways. And I think it's important because the film would need to set itself apart from Nolan's film, even though they exist within the same universe, lest the film be criticised for simply trying to imitate Nolan.

I think the John Blake road is a bad idea. For one, he's not Bruce Wayne and people aren't likely to care as much, and secondly I think we need a big change in direction from the Nolan films. Even having John Blake in a different kind of Gotham City would still be toting baggage from the Nolan trilogy.

As for Blake and fighting. I don't care for Wayne's actions. I don't see Wayne leaving Gotham behind, and I don't really like that he does. Okay, retire and train Blake? I would totally accept that. But leaving Blake to fend for himself just seems reckless. And Blake is at a disadvantage because he can't exactly go up and live in Wayne Manor because it's now the X-Mansion. The logistics don't make sense. But I'm more concerned that it makes Wayne look like a dick.

I have a hard time seeing the franchise continuing with John Blake as Batman. How do you market that?

Also, WB won't be releasing box office figures until Monday because of last night's shooting in Colorado.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dark-knight-rises-shooting-warner-bros-box-office-grosses-352660

Armond drops the bomb on it.

http://cityarts.info/2012/07/20/bat-guano-economics/

Largo's Shark wrote:

Armond drops the bomb on it.

http://cityarts.info/2012/07/20/bat-guano-economics/

No shit huh?

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just Armond's ambassador on earth.

Why do we care about what Armond thinks? Sure, he was provocative to begin with, but now he does it for the sake of it to make a name for himself, rather than because he actually thinks that way.

Everytime I read an Armond White review, I always end up wondering "What the hell is he ranting about". They read like a college freshman needed to write a paper quickly and just threw complex words and comparisons to other films instead of getting to the point.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

... now he does it for the sake of it to make a name for himself, rather than because he actually thinks that way.

Got any evidence for that, or is that just your woman's intuition?

Tubes wrote:

Everytime I read an Armond White review, I always end up wondering "What the hell is he ranting about". They read like a college freshman needed to write a paper quickly and just threw complex words and comparisons to other films instead of getting to the point.

I agree that the writing's verbose, but the thoughts behind the fancy surface are sound. He cuts deep.

The man is a real-life internet troll. He clearly has no convictions of his own, except getting attention. His tastes in film are so varied and contradictory that, over time, it appears that he simply writes whatever will get the most people talking about him. He's like Joe Saward, a motorsports "journalist" who appears insightful the first few times you ready him, but about about a month, you realise he's just pissing in the pool and congratulating himself for it.

Armond White might have some good points. The occasion review that I have read does get me thinking about minor details the did not occur to me the first time around, particularly in the first reviews that I read. But they are lost in a sea of cynical self-gratification. People condemn Hollywood for bowing to whatever happens to be in vogue at the time, so it never ceases to amaze me that those same people congratulate White when he's been the one trying to get everyone incensed the first time around.

Let's put it this way, Sharky: a few days ago, you posted one of the tracks from the film which had been slowed down to 800%, and then you posted a Justin Bieber song that had been slowed down to 800%, and proceeded to claim that Hans Zimmer was creatively bankrupt because of this (even though anything will sound like Justin Bieber if you slow it down by 800%). It was immediately obvious that you were attacking the film for the sake of it - and going out on a limb to do it - because of your well-documented dislike of both Zimmer and Nolan. This little stunt was precisely the kind of thing that Armond White does with his reviews.

So, you want proof of what I think about White's style? Well, you are that proof, Sharky. A living-breathing testament to it all.

Quote :

Let's put it this way, Sharky: a few days ago, you posted one of the tracks from the film which had been slowed down to 800%, and then you posted a Justin Bieber song that had been slowed down to 800%, and proceeded to claim that Hans Zimmer was creatively bankrupt because of this (even though anything will sound like Justin Bieber if you slow it down by 800%). It was immediately obvious that you were attacking the film for the sake of it - and going out on a limb to do it - because of your well-documented dislike of both Zimmer and Nolan. This little stunt was precisely the kind of thing that Armond White does with his reviews.

Grow a fucking sense of humour will you? That Justin Bieber shit was meant as a joke. When slowed down "Baby" or whatever sounded like a Sigur Rós number, which in turn sounded like that track from the score. Considering Zimmer slow down "Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien" for INCEPTION, there was an element of truth to it, despite its absurdity.

Still waiting for the evidence that Armond White's a certified troll. "He is, he is, so are you Sharky." won't cut it.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Grow a fucking sense of humour will you? That Justin Bieber shit was meant as a joke.

Oh, if anybody else had done it, I would have found it funny. But given your constant criticism of Zimmer - some of it deserved, I'll admit - I wasn't sure if you were being serious or not.

I have just seen the movie in IMAX. No SKYFALL trailer but we got a teaser for the MAN OF STEEL which was okay. The movie felt like a much more direct sequel to BATMAN BEGINS than TDK.

I liked the fact that there was much more humour than the first two and Anne Hathaway was surprisingly good but I think Nolan tried to tackle too many things at once and ultimately led to the movie being highly flawed.

At the end the movie felt like a combination of BATMAN BEGINS and TWINE if that makes sense. The rumour about Talia Al Ghul was quite predictable.

I still don't understand whether Blake will be Batman or Robin? I know he inherits the Batcave but are we really going to have a Batman called "Robin John Blake"?

I felt it was the same movie as BB but on a much grander scale. I still think TDK is the best of the trilogy mostly due to Ledger and Eckhart.

bondfan06 wrote:

I still don't understand whether Blake will be Batman or Robin? I know he inherits the Batcave but are we really going to have a Batman called "Robin John Blake"?

I have a hard time seeing the next one featuring a Batman who isn't Bruce Wayne, but the studio seems to be eating out of Chris Nolan's hands, so if he has anything to do with the next film, I'm sure he could make it happen if he wanted.

Jack Wade wrote:

bondfan06 wrote:

I still don't understand whether Blake will be Batman or Robin? I know he inherits the Batcave but are we really going to have a Batman called "Robin John Blake"?

I have a hard time seeing the next one featuring a Batman who isn't Bruce Wayne, but the studio seems to be eating out of Chris Nolan's hands, so if he has anything to do with the next film, I'm sure he could make it happen if he wanted.

Christopher Nolan is producing the next few.

At this point, I'm guessing we're entering into a BATMAN BEYOND sort of situation here with Blake as Batman.

Tubes wrote:

Everytime I read an Armond White review, I always end up wondering "What the hell is he ranting about". They read like a college freshman needed to write a paper quickly and just threw complex words and comparisons to other films instead of getting to the point.

I had to lol at the 'kids don't realise Nolan is peddling used goods' its difficult to imagine a more overtly pretentious phrase and pretty much belies the concept he is actually reviewing the film at all - it's much more simply a jaded rant on the percieved state of the market.

lachesis wrote:

I had to lol at the 'kids don't realise Nolan is peddling used goods' its difficult to imagine a more overtly pretentious phrase

Not really. You'll find a lot more pretentious phrases than that in Armond White's oeuvre body of work.

lachesis wrote:

it's much more simply a jaded rant on the percieved state of the market.

It's both. He doesn't find the film interesting enough to look at in isolation.

Largo's Shark wrote:

lachesis wrote:

I had to lol at the 'kids don't realise Nolan is peddling used goods' its difficult to imagine a more overtly pretentious phrase

Not really. You'll find a lot more pretentious phrases than that in Armond White's oeuvre body of work.

lachesis wrote:

it's much more simply a jaded rant on the percieved state of the market.

It's both. He doesn't find the film interesting enough to look at in isolation.

Unfortunately the phrase is in essence contradictory. What movie since the very earliest days isn't comprised of 'used goods', the best use them extensively imo, the film makers real challenge is employing them in a manner that makes them appears fresh or resonant with the intended audience...something this article tends to confirms is achieved but only in the context of that being another problem.

The message I really take from this peice is 'it's really not worth going to the movies today because todays movies are made for todays audience and they don't know crap'. As a point of reference it seems a tad curmudgeonly - and thats from someone almost inclined to agree with the statement ^^.

lachesis wrote:

Unfortunately the phrase is in essence contradictory. What movie since the very earliest days isn't comprised of 'used goods', the best use them extensively imo, the film makers real challenge is employing them in a manner that makes them appears fresh or resonant with the intended audience...something this article tends to confirms is achieved but only in the context of that being another problem.

I'm getting that the Armond means the phrase in the sense of something being second hand. Action tropes being recycled, but done in a hackneyed way. I'm sure White wouldn't have a problem with a film breathing new life into a familiar plot device or type of action sequence, as often praises Spielberg that. What he's bored with is Nolan (and others) patching the same stuff together without adding any new energy, sense of awe, wit, or excitement,.

lachesis wrote:

The message I really take from this peice is 'it's really not worth going to the movies today because todays movies are made for todays audience and they don't know crap'. As a point of reference it seems a tad curmudgeonly - and thats from someone almost inclined to agree with the statement ^^.

Armond White likes lots of contemporary films. Usually not the big blockbusters (thought he did enjoy MI:4). He's just tired of Nolan and his fanboys. The emperor has no cloths.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Armond drops the bomb on it.

http://cityarts.info/2012/07/20/bat-guano-economics/

Interesting read. It's safe to check out the film now. Armond has spoken. :shock:

"Even I mistook the franchise’s previous mass killings and implacably malevolent adversaries for significant (sickening) ugliness because they resonated 9/11 anxiety. But as The Dark Knight Rises plods toward the three-hour point and Nolan drops-in newsy gibes, it becomes obvious that his political evocations mean nothing. There hasn’t been a trilogy this shapeless and unresonant since The Lord of the Rings–partly to ensure another Nolan sequel (Dark Robin Lays an Egg?).

"Unlike The Joker’s maniacal outrages, The Dark Knight Rises is just dull, obvious calculation. Nolan’s cynicism is symbolized by a mushroom cloud climax that wastes one of the most profound specters of the modern imagination. In pop terms, Nolan hasn’t got the wit to “nuke the fridge” (Spielberg’s rich, still-misunderstood anthropological jest). But in commercial terms, the way Nolan turns comic book frivolity into hipster nihilism drops a bomb on our cultural economy."

Just watched TDKR last night, and I was predictably blown away, mesmerised, gripped, etc. Nolan has delivered the goods once again, with Bale giving the best performance out of the 3 films, Zimmer outstanding, Catwoman superb and sexy, Bane actually rather scary, and enough twists and turns to keep most audiences riveted until the final moment.

Too long? I could have continued watching that for another hour at least. One of the best films in recent years, and probably the best of the 3 Nolan Batman flicks.

I'm looking forward to watching it again.

Quote :

"But in commercial terms, the way Nolan turns comic book frivolity into hipster nihilism drops a bomb on our cultural economy."

White has watched Nolan's otehr Bat-films ... right? It's not like RISES suddenly did an about-face in its themes. Or does White's memory only extend as far back as THE AVENGERS?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Quote :

"But in commercial terms, the way Nolan turns comic book frivolity into hipster nihilism drops a bomb on our cultural economy."

White has watched Nolan's otehr Bat-films ... right? It's not like RISES suddenly did an about-face in its themes. Or does White's memory only extend as far back as THE AVENGERS?

Here's his review of THE DARK KNIGHT.

http://nypress.com/knight-to-remember/

I can't find BATMAN BEGINS.

"Only" on track to gross $160 million its opening weekend, down quite a bit from its earliest projections.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-report-dark-knight-rises-aurora-shooting-christopher-nolan-christian-bale-james-holmes-352829