[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

Apple seems to be having getting the trailer on its website, but a few people caught the 720p (clicky) and 1080p (clicky) versions and made them available for download.

EDIT: Here it is: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknightrises/

FourDot wrote:

John Ford always has one or more character blustering about with the full belief that they're the most masculine, macho character in the room (or camp or whatever) and always makes sure they wind up looking like an idiot.

Nolan sometimes does the same. Except he kills 'em.

I think he accidentally did this with Harvey Dent.

The character was written to be a hot-shot/badass, but ended up looking like a complete idiot because of Eckhart's terrible acting.

I'm hardly blown away by that trailer.

I feel like Nolan himself lost interest a long time ago and is just fulfilling his contractual obligations vis-à-vis WB. The Dark Knight was already well inferior to Batman Begins. I fear that the third installment will further the trend of diminishing returns.

And Cotillard looks more like Catwoman than Hathaway does. He might regret the Frenchwoman's inclusion on the cast for that reason alone.

That trailer doesn't do it for me. But then again I wasn't bowled over by the last movie which was a hype but felt dissapointing to me. I prefered Nolans Inception easily to these two vehicles.

Loomis wrote:

I can't picture Bane being anything like as compelling a character as Ledger's Joker, to say nothing of the fact that he hardly seems an original creation - I kept expecting him to growl "Be still, my dog of war."

For all his hype, Ledger's Joker wasn't that original anyway. He was just a hodgepodge of Scorpio from DIRTY HARRY, Ratso Rizzo's Bronx accent from MIDNIGHT COWBOY, Gwynplaine from THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, and a few other inspirations. Ledger's Joker character just a less common archetype than Hardy's Bane.

The compelling aspect comes to a sum of the screenplay, direction and performance.

Jack Wade wrote:

Apple seems to be having getting the trailer on its website, but a few people caught the 720p (clicky) and 1080p (clicky) versions and made them available for download.

EDIT: Here it is: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknightrises/

Why am I getting the QuickTime logo with a question mark over it?

Never mind, here we are:

Saw the trailer. Looks compelling. Want to see it now.

for those of y'all who would like a HD copy of it

darkknightrises-tlr1_h480p.mov (36.96 MB) http://www.multiupload.com/PC3SQAKH6F
darkknightrises-tlr1_h720p.mov (93.27 MB) http://www.multiupload.com/OC98PZT0UM
darkknightrises-tlr1_h1080p.mov (148.07 MB) http://www.multiupload.com/Z7V7VFBFQJ

saint mark wrote:

That trailer doesn't do it for me. But then again I wasn't bowled over by the last movie which was a hype but felt dissapointing to me. I prefered Nolans Inception easily to these two vehicles.

I don't care for INCEPTION. I think THE DARK KNIGHT is easily Nolan's best film.

As for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.... I dunno. We'll have to see.

The most interesting thing about this new trailer is that Batman scarely gets a look-in. We see a lot of Bruce Wayne but practically nothing of Batman. Indeed, are there any shots of him in the Bat costume? Can't remember offhand.

There is a shot of him and Bane fighting on the courthouse steps.

NO shots of Catwoman, however, at all.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

There is a shot of him and Bane fighting on the courthouse steps.

NO shots of Catwoman, however, at all.

you want Catwoman?

That Anne Hathaway? :shock:

*smacks forehead*

Between Sharky's need to overpoliticize and j7's need to overpornographize, it's a wonder anything gets done around here.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

*smacks forehead*

Between Sharky's need to overpoliticize and j7's need to overpornographize, it's a wonder anything gets done around here.

That's precisely how things get done here!

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

NO shots of Catwoman, however, at all.

She does appear in consume in the montage of shots attached to the end of the IMAX prologue.

Give Nolan some credit on this one. While I very much doubt that he personally cut the trailer himself, he's probably the one steering the boat. Not only does Catwoman not appear, but there's virtually no Batman (in costume) and only a little bit of Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt. The same thing happened with the trailers for THE DARK KNIGHT - they only painted the film in the broadest of strokes. With this trailer, Warner Brothers have managed to pique interest without giving any real detail away.

What's interesting about the use of the "Occupy Gotham" style dialogue from Selina is that it does fit with the characters and their world. Bruce is old money, the kind of entreched elitist who can't even defend himself with the idea that he's earned his wealth. Selina has traditionally been portrayed in the comics as someone from a much lower social strata who steals her way into higher society and has a ton of contempt for the rich.

But what's even more interesting is to keep in mind that despite all of this, Bruce is still the hero and Selina the villain. It is interesting to hear the words of the recent leftist movement coming from someone who is a criminal and who's answer to the idea of redistributing wealth is the rather literal one of outwright theft.

Of course, if the various fanwank theories are anything to go by, Bruce may not be the hero much longer, hence JGL's blue collar cop type character.

Basically I'm just intrigued about where Nolan is falling in his interpretation of this issue. Is he going to replace Bruce simply because he feels guilty portraying a member of the so-called 1% as a hero?

But isn't there an element of Objectivism or some such in these flicks? I thought that was being said some time ago.

Tearing Gotham up, while not the answer to anything, is an exciting idea.

That was me who brought that up. It's not really in any of Nolan's earlier works, but I saw it pretty clearly in DARK KNIGHT and INCEPTION. Batman is a hero who fights for order and justice using reason and willpower, and Nolan's depiction of the terror of Joker's chaos and anarchy, altogether with other things it points to a somewhat Objectivist view of things. Bane, as a dark reflection of Batman (as he was in the original comics), lends further fuel to this.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

What's interesting about the use of the "Occupy Gotham" style dialogue from Selina is that it does fit with the characters and their world. Bruce is old money, the kind of entreched elitist who can't even defend himself with the idea that he's earned his wealth. Selina has traditionally been portrayed in the comics as someone from a much lower social strata who steals her way into higher society and has a ton of contempt for the rich.

The thing about Bruce and Selina is that they both live double lives - and both seem to be far more comfortable when they are prowling around at night. We saw as much in THE DARK KNGHT when Bruce was a complete arsehole towards Rachel and Harvey; not because they were together, but because he was in public. We know Bruce is a decent person, but he acts the way he thinks he is supposed to when he is surrounded by people who have certain expectations of him. And I think that's the reason why Bruce and Selina have so much chemistry in the comics: each has something in the other that nobody else gets to see. Both of them put on masks and run around the city at night. Both of them put on an act when they are out in public without their masks. But when they are alone, they can afford to let their actual selves show through.

I think Selina passes her warning on to Bruce not because she will take pleasure in seeing him brought down by "Occupy Gotham", but because she sees a side to herself in him. She is drawn to him because the rich and poweful facade is just that: a facade. She identifies him as the only man in the room who could actually change things and prevent the coming cataclysm.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But what's even more interesting is to keep in mind that despite all of this, Bruce is still the hero and Selina the villain. It is interesting to hear the words of the recent leftist movement coming from someone who is a criminal and who's answer to the idea of redistributing wealth is the rather literal one of outwright theft.

But hasn't Selina traditionally been something of a hero, allying herself to Batman when it suits her? I think an interesting subplot for the film would revolve around Selina being identified as the one giving Bruce Wayne the warning, and rather than concentrate on dealing with Bane, the Powers That Be fixate on Selina, assuming that because she gave the warning, she has to know more than she told. So they effectively can't see the forest for the trees.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Of course, if the various fanwank theories are anything to go by, Bruce may not be the hero much longer, hence JGL's blue collar cop type character.

Gordon-Leavitt is the big unknown for me. We don't really know anything about him in the film, other than that he is John Blake, a "beat cop assigned to a special duty by Jim Gordon". I still like the theory that bane will pick off Batman's allies one by one. If he breaks Gordon's back, Gordon will be confined to a hospital - and with Batman a wanted fugitive, he can hardly stop by the Commissioner's room. But John Blake can, so I think Blake will be told the truth about Harvey Dent's crimes so that he can confer with Batman and report back to Gordon.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Basically I'm just intrigued about where Nolan is falling in his interpretation of this issue. Is he going to replace Bruce simply because he feels guilty portraying a member of the so-called 1% as a hero?

I don't think the Occupy movement is going to materialise as solidly as a lot of people think. And Nolan is savvy enough to recognise that being in the 1% does not automatically make someone greedy. BEGINS establishes that Bruce's sense of philanthropy comes from his father, and there are some within the 1% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-wall-street-protests-newest-blog-we-are-the-1-percent-we-stand-with-the-99-percent/2011/10/13/gIQA7Yx1hL_blog.html) who support the Occupy movement. So there is a precedent for Bruce Wayne using his wealth to help the common man without breaking character (and the official description of Marion Cotillard's character says she tries to help him recover his sense of philanthropy).

But at the end of the day, this is a film. Comparisons have been drawn between THE DARK KNIGHT and the Iraq War, but Nolan has denied that the story was ripped from the headlines. He's making a film, not a social statement. There will no doubt be people who pick RISES apart as a social commentary, but I think Nolan is motivated by the desire to tell a good story rather than political grandstanding.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Batman is a hero who fights for order and justice using reason and willpower, and Nolan's depiction of the terror of Joker's chaos and anarchy, altogether with other things it points to a somewhat Objectivist view of things.

Nolan's sense of morality is far from Objectivist.

I don't think bringing in that crazy Anal Rand bitch will helps this debate, Sykes.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

But what's even more interesting is to keep in mind that despite all of this, Bruce is still the hero and Selina the villain. It is interesting to hear the words of the recent leftist movement coming from someone who is a criminal and who's answer to the idea of redistributing wealth is the rather literal one of outwright theft.

But hasn't Selina traditionally been something of a hero, allying herself to Batman when it suits her? I think an interesting subplot for the film would revolve around Selina being identified as the one giving Bruce Wayne the warning, and rather than concentrate on dealing with Bane, the Powers That Be fixate on Selina, assuming that because she gave the warning, she has to know more than she told. So they effectively can't see the forest for the trees.

Selina's depiction for the first 10 years or so of the character was that of a villain, albeit one who attracted and was attracted to Batman, and who as a mere jewel thief was far less extreme than that of Batman's other rogues. Batman was often motivated to try to reform her, while she wanted just as much to turn Batman to crime. Her criminal activities were in many ways her way of rebelling, as a woman, against the rich men of society. In the 1950s, she reformed and became a model citizen, because trends in comics at the time a) disallowed female villains (or independant women of any kind) or b) endings were the villain gets away, which was the standard ending for Catwoman stories, usually because she would trick or seduce Batman into letting her go.
She was reintroduced in the 60s as a straight villain, but as the 70s and 80s came so too did her on-again, off-again semi-romance with Batman. Her motives became less about villainy and far more about simply getting her piece of the pie, as it were, getting her fair shake, albeit criminally. A thief, yes, but as the 90s dawned far more of an anti-hero.
Anti-hero has largely been where she has stood since then, and since about ten years ago she has often been more on the side of Batman and his various allies than against him, although with an uncomfortable distance still between them due to her complete willingness to fault the law and cross the line into criminality.

So overall, anti-hero is maybe the best description -- but one opposed to Batman more often than allied, despite their mutual attraction which has been present ever since her introduction in 1940.

So she's not just a latex porno queen?

The idea of Catwoman wearing skintight latex actually first appeared in Burton's movie version, and the comic book version only started wearing a similar costume in the comics in 2001.

Her costume for the vast majority of her comic book history was a purple dress with green cape and a purple cowl:

That was her appearance until she disappeared due to censorship in the 1950s. After she "reformed" the ears on the cowl were drawn more rounded than pointed.

When she returned to comics, it was thanks to Julie Newmar's portrayal in the TV show. Her costume in the comics was altered to match, although the idiot colourists made it green instead of black -- green and purple being traditional villain colours, but really ugly on this outfit:


In the 70s there was an attempt to make her a "feminist" villain (lol) and she was given this hideous appearance:


But for the majority of the 70s and early 80s she returned to wearing her 1940s garb.


Frank Miller's reinvention of the character in 1987 introduced a sleek and tasteful one-piece grey catsuit, which later inspired her appearance on the 90s animated series:


However, thanks to 90s colouring, this outfit evolved into being coloured purple (which at least is a traditional Catwoman colour), before finally bowing the ludicrous art styles of the 90s and becoming this:


Meanwhile, she appeared on the 90s cartoon in grey and in Burton's movie in that iconic vinyl catsuit, and thus fetish Catwoman was born! Comics finally caught up in 2001 and gave her this awesome outfit:


Which unfortunately in the last three years or so has developed a tendency to be drawn with the zipper way down and her tits hanging out, because that's DC's definition of "strong female character" these days:


Ugh. Don't get me started on how much DC sucks these days.