[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

Makeshift Python wrote:

That's how I always saw it too. Batman Begins was about Bruce Wayne. In TDK Wayne was no longer front and center and people complained about it thinking the Joker was stealing the spotlight just like it was happening in the 90s films. No, no and no. TDK is absolutely more of an ensemble story with every character getting equal due, no short changing.

You have to admit Batman/Bruce Wayne came off very bland in TDK, unlike the more associable version of him in BB. Could be Bale's acting but I'd definitely say that Bruce Wayne character was undervalued and underwritten in the second film.

Darth Bork wrote:

Makeshift Python wrote:

That's how I always saw it too. Batman Begins was about Bruce Wayne. In TDK Wayne was no longer front and center and people complained about it thinking the Joker was stealing the spotlight just like it was happening in the 90s films. No, no and no. TDK is absolutely more of an ensemble story with every character getting equal due, no short changing.

You have to admit Batman/Bruce Wayne came off very bland in TDK, unlike the more associable version of him in BB. Could be Bale's acting but I'd definitely say that Bruce Wayne character was undervalued and underwritten in the second film.

The problem with Wayne in TDK was that, until near the end of the movie, he's essentially a character who's looking to NOT take action. Oh, he IS taking the action, but essentially he's looking for an excuse to STOP being Batman so he can live a normal life with Rachel. He DOESN'T want to be the hero, he needs Dent to replace him. And while that's interesting, and while it's a natural reaction, and while it also motivates the use of the Joker because the existence of the Joker shows why Gotham needs Batman (moreso than the argument that the existence of Batman creates the Joker), ---- it's NOT what an audience wants to watch. I would argue that an audience doesn't want to see their hero looking for excuses to do nothing, and whining about having to take action. When Wayne is packing up his shit and burning his papers and Alfred's telling him "Fuck that, be the outcast, be the hero, stand up and do what's right regardless!" I was cheering so hard for Michael Caine. Heroes are men of action, not inaction. TDK makes up for it by having Wayne realize this in the end, as well as supplementing the movie with a very dynamic and interesting cast of supporting characters -- Joker, Dent, Rachel, Gordon, Alfred, etc. But the same problem was the DEATHKNELL in Superman Returns.

I'll chuck it out there too and say I much prefer Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. The later has unmemorable colour tones whereas at least BB had a nice atmosphere created in the orange tinge.

James. C wrote:

I'll chuck it out there too and say I much prefer Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. The later has unmemorable colour tones whereas at least BB had a nice atmosphere created in the orange tinge.

I think quite the opposite. BATMAN BEGINS is kind of muddy and drab (apparently, Nolan was trying to ape BLADE RUNNER, but he doesn't get very far with that), while THE DARK KNIGHT, visually, has a much better sense of visual scale and color, even if it is kinda taken straight from the work of Michael Mann.

Arkadin wrote:

James. C wrote:

I'll chuck it out there too and say I much prefer Batman Begins to The Dark Knight. The later has unmemorable colour tones whereas at least BB had a nice atmosphere created in the orange tinge.

I think quite the opposite. BATMAN BEGINS is kind of muddy and drab (apparently, Nolan was trying to ape BLADE RUNNER, but he doesn't get very far with that), while THE DARK KNIGHT, visually, has a much better sense of visual scale and color, even if it is kinda taken straight from the work of Michael Mann.

I think the Blade Runner-aping was mostly to do Narrows aesthetic. If the photography is meant to evoke Blade Runner then yeah, that's a total failure, but I'm not sure it was Nolan/Pfister's intent.

TDK is a knockout though, not in the least due to the large-format IMAX photography (man, do I wish that were the fad instead of 3D). But then I can't think of any capacity in which Batman Begins is superior to The Dark Knight. Better Cillian Murphy, sure. Apart from that... better Linus Roache, I guess, as well. Credit where credit's due.

And quadruple the amount of repeated lines. Sure as hell can't forget that.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Two-Face was a lot more compelling as the film's emotional core. Should've used him more. I worry that characters won't get their fair share of development in Rises if they try to stuff in too many.

I was totally set for Two-Face to be the villain in the NEXT film, instead of basically being tacked on at the end of TDK. I was disappointed when he was killed off.

My biggest fear for TDKR is that it will have Spiderman 3 syndrome. Too many villains to really develop any of them to an acceptable degree. You can't have that much going on in a film and have it all be quality.

lalala2004 wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Two-Face was a lot more compelling as the film's emotional core. Should've used him more. I worry that characters won't get their fair share of development in Rises if they try to stuff in too many.

I was totally set for Two-Face to be the villain in the NEXT film, instead of basically being tacked on at the end of TDK. I was disappointed when he was killed off.

Dent never really functions as a "villain" in the film, it's still the Joker, even after he's been caught. I don't think it's super-critical that Nolan's incarnation of Dent ever really become your stock-standard "Rogue's Gallery" dude. I for one was glad that Nolan didn't do what EVERYONE ELSE does and save everything interesting for future installments, just for the sake of prolonging them.

Some people have suggested that the film should have ended after the Joker was caught the first time, which to my mind would have made for the least satisfying film in the history of man.. People are always pissed off by these second installments that only serve to set up a third. TDK and Empire deliver complete stories within a single film, while setting up stuff, but most other sequels these days don't do that sort of thing. Iron Man 2 exists only to set up The Avengers - as a film by itself it's just empty.

If anything, Dent should have been cast for Batman Begins. Someone else can get killed at the containers.

What the next Batflick really needs: A touching R Kelly theme song - "A city of justice/A city of love/Gotham City/Yeah yeah"

Oldman seems genuinely convinced that Nolan has "outdone himself":

FourDot wrote:

People are always pissed off by these second installments that only serve to set up a third. TDK and Empire deliver complete stories within a single film, while setting up stuff, but most other sequels these days don't do that sort of thing.

I've heard many people complain about the ending of TESB, though. Disliking that it was open ended...

Personally, I love it, and I love open ended movies, even if they don't have a sequel.

lalala2004 wrote:

I've heard many people complain about the ending of TESB, though. Disliking that it was open ended...

I think some people are more annoyed that it leads to JEDI.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

lalala2004 wrote:

I've heard many people complain about the ending of TESB, though. Disliking that it was open ended...

I think some people are more annoyed that it leads to JEDI.

Haha, that's a bingo.

---------------

The Dark Knight was a very good film, but my God the character of Two-Face was so criminally wasted that the only other character more underused and prematurely killed off would be Venom from Spider-Man 3. Introducing Two-Face was great, but killing him 30 minutes after? You couldn't of kept him alive? They kept the Joker alive for God's sake!

And then comes to Heath Ledger's Joker; in my mind one of the greatest characters in film. I always wondered, if you take out Ledger's Joker, how greatly the film would be impacted.

But then I realized...

Take Ledger's Joker out and The Dark Knight becomes an overlong, overly dramatic, slightly above passable film. I'm truly amazed how good Ledger's Joker made The Dark Knight for me.

Looks like Nolan will be producing the next phase of Batman films after The Dark Knight Rises:

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/03/29/justice-league-the-movie-warner-chief-sets-sights-on-team-up-film-and-reinventing-batman/

SJK91 wrote:

The Dark Knight was a very good film, but my God the character of Two-Face was so criminally wasted that the only other character more underused and prematurely killed off would be Venom from Spider-Man 3. Introducing Two-Face was great, but killing him 30 minutes after? You couldn't of kept him alive? They kept the Joker alive for God's sake!

Yeah, but Harvey Dent had a purpose in the story beforehand. Becoming Two-Face was part of his arc. Eddie Brock becoming Venom was almost incidental. Gratuitous. I liked how Nolan didn't make Two-Face a standard 'villain-of-the-week' rogue, but actually used Dent, his transformation and his death in the narrative.

SJK91 wrote:

Take Ledger's Joker out and The Dark Knight becomes an overlong, overly dramatic, slightly above passable film.

Wouldn't cutting the Joker out make the run-time less? ;) Nah, I don't agree with you. I actually enjoyed Eckhart and Oldman a lot more.

Jack Wade wrote:

Looks like Nolan will be producing the next phase of Batman films after The Dark Knight Rises:

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/03/29/justice-league-the-movie-warner-chief-sets-sights-on-team-up-film-and-reinventing-batman/

Scroll down, it's Lex Luthor!

And the Gotham City of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will be Pittsburgh.

Goodbye continuity. ;)

Will be interesting to see how he uses Pittsburgh.

Arkadin wrote:

And the Gotham City of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will be Pittsburgh.

Interesting. Anyone ever been to Pittsburgh? I think I've been through it.

It's interesting to note that THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was shot in and around Pittsburgh.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Arkadin wrote:

And the Gotham City of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will be Pittsburgh.

Interesting. Anyone ever been to Pittsburgh? I think I've been through it.

Wasn't Pittsburgh Singer's Metropolis?

Also, anyone know what the motivation behind the move is? Nolan was pretty married to Chicago in the first two movies, I mean aside from some basic Photoshop and ONE wide shot in BB he basically made no attempt to disguise the city.

I'm going to assume it's a money-related move.

Arkadin wrote:

Oldman seems genuinely convinced that Nolan has "outdone himself":

Of course he would be. He's getting the $

I miss the days of PRICK UP YOUR EARS and SID AND NANCY, when he was a breath of fresh air, doing interesting, thought-provoking work. My dad knew Gary back in the late 70s, when they both at the Leicester Haymarket Theatre, along with Alan Rickman and Michael Bogdanov. He said he was a nice lad, and even met his family. Apparently they were terribly middle class.

Later my dad wrote a letter to him, asking him about NIL BY MOUTH, where Oldman essentially manufactured rough a working class background for himself that never existed. Naturally he got no reply.

Josh Pence cast as young Ra's al Ghul.

Who's playing the kitchen sink?

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Who's playing the kitchen sink?

Hopefully that Shia LaBoobs guy.

Having given it a little bit of a thought now, the thing that bothers me most about Hathaway as Selina Kyle is the voice. If she is going to be Catwoman, her voice should at least carry a hint of danger, yet Hathaway always sound as if she's exhaling honeyed rose petals. Which is fine in any romcom, but can ruin this particular characterization.

Or is Nolan going to give her a terrible alternate voice à la Bruce/Batman? :x