[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

I don't read comics, but I don't like the idea of crossovers. I've said this before. How can Batman possibly operate in a world where Superman exists? Especially after I've learned that Metropolis and Gotham are freaking neighbors!

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

start introducing NEW CHARACTERS and NEW IDEAS.

This, absolutely.

I've been meaning to ask. Okay, so Ledger-Joker is very popular. Academy Award, everything. Every so often a character or performance comes along that people grab on to and everyone around the water cooler does an impression of. I'd say the one before Ledger-Joker would be Captain Jack Sparrow.

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character? I'm not a Batman expert, but I see him as an interesting take, but not a definitive vision. You could say that with so many comics and so much history, what is a definitive Joker? But Ledger's Joker is not quite my vision of the character. He's a good take. He's entirely appropriate for the film itself, and for Nolan's universe.

The question extends to the Nolan films thus far. Are these something definitive, or an interesting take on the Batman mythos? It may be... Well, it is the best version of it in film... But just because these films may not be surpassed in quality doesn't mean I don't think there's room for another Batman film series down the road.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character?

Compared to the nuances and sly wit of Jack Nicholson's Joker, I do find him one-note. Overrated to the max. That posthumous (post-humus?) Oscar was just an attempt by the Academy to appease the fanboys. I'd wager they feared their lives, if they didn't.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I've been meaning to ask. Okay, so Ledger-Joker is very popular. Academy Award, everything. Every so often a character or performance comes along that people grab on to and everyone around the water cooler does an impression of. I'd say the one before Ledger-Joker would be Captain Jack Sparrow.

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character? I'm not a Batman expert, but I see him as an interesting take, but not a definitive vision. You could say that with so many comics and so much history, what is a definitive Joker? But Ledger's Joker is not quite my vision of the character. He's a good take. He's entirely appropriate for the film itself, and for Nolan's universe.

The question extends to the Nolan films thus far. Are these something definitive, or an interesting take on the Batman mythos? It may be... Well, it is the best version of it in film... But just because these films may not be surpassed in quality doesn't mean I don't think there's room for another Batman film series down the road.

I caught parts of Batman Returns on TV last night and for a good 15-20 minutes was entranced by it, in particular by the Selina Kyle scenes. It's a ridiculous, kitschy film, but it never fails to entertain. Walken, Pfeiffer, DeVito, Keaton, and of course Burton are all part of what it makes it so much fun. Nolan's films are an entirely different animal, but no more or no less definitive to me. Like you say... a different take. Remakes and reboots are usually annoying. If I think I'll enjoy them, I'll go see the Dark Knights and the First Classes, but I'm not too worried about how definitive or true to the roots they are. I'm just not that immersed in the genre. I have no doubt though that there will be more takes on Batman and even the Joker. Like Bond, the Batman mythos is easily adaptable to today's fears and conditions.

Sharky wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character?

Compared to the nuances and sly wit of Jack Nicholson's Joker, I do find him one-note. Overrated to the max. That posthumous (post-humus?) Oscar was just an attempt by the Academy to appease the fanboys. I'd wager they feared their lives, if they didn't.

Though I wish Jack had brought more real menace to it.

As for the Oscar. Had he lived, I'm not sure he'd have won. But maybe. I think the performance caught people's attention, which can help at the Oscars. Add the dose of tragedy...

I do recall my main acting teacher back in LA (who knows his shit) wasn't very impressed by Ledger's Joker. Everyone was talking about it, and he threw in his two cents from having seen the "Bat-person" film.

I think Ledger-Joker is more interesting as an element in the film, as opposed to a character. He's really not so much a character in my eyes as a... I guess I'd use the word "foil", but not in a comedic sense. He serves a purpose, but it would take a lot to make him nearly as good a second time around. So many people wanted him to return (if Ledger were alive), but I don't think it would have worked.

Nolan said he would have had a cameo but that would have been it. Even if he did live, I think a cameo might have been too distracting given the popularity so he might have scrapped it.

I'd call it an interesting take. To me the definitive version is Mark Hamill.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I've been meaning to ask. Okay, so Ledger-Joker is very popular. Academy Award, everything. Every so often a character or performance comes along that people grab on to and everyone around the water cooler does an impression of. I'd say the one before Ledger-Joker would be Captain Jack Sparrow.

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character? I'm not a Batman expert, but I see him as an interesting take, but not a definitive vision. You could say that with so many comics and so much history, what is a definitive Joker? But Ledger's Joker is not quite my vision of the character. He's a good take. He's entirely appropriate for the film itself, and for Nolan's universe.

The question extends to the Nolan films thus far. Are these something definitive, or an interesting take on the Batman mythos? It may be... Well, it is the best version of it in film... But just because these films may not be surpassed in quality doesn't mean I don't think there's room for another Batman film series down the road.

The Nolan films are the best version of Batman ON FILM. But definitive? Hardly. Ledger's Joker is informed by various takes on Joker from the comics but is ultimately a different beast. There's pieces here and there but ultimately there's none of the charisma, none of the slyness of the comics Joker. The closest to Ledger's Joker in comics was a graphic novel called "JOKER" by Brian Azzarello if I'm not mistaken.

None of the film versions have presented a version of ANY of the villains that would be "definitive". Nicholson's Joker was fairly comics accurate, but ultimately was just too soft. Not menacing, as Tux says. Pffieffer's Catwoman was sexy and dangerous, and DeVito's Penguin was memorable and fun, but both are far more like original Burton creations than reflections of the comic. Both of the villains in FOREVER are portrayed as low-rent Joker clones rather than depicting the comics version. B&R is actually pretty close to the comics with it's villains so far as concept, but is obviously playing up the jokes instead of the drama. All of Nolan's villains are more like re-interpretations. Eckhart's Two-Face is REALLY close, but isn't in the film enough and doesn't do enough before he dies to be definitive.

Outside of the comics, if you want to find a portrayal that really sums up the characters in a definitive manner, BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES is the best job.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I've been meaning to ask. Okay, so Ledger-Joker is very popular. Academy Award, everything. Every so often a character or performance comes along that people grab on to and everyone around the water cooler does an impression of. I'd say the one before Ledger-Joker would be Captain Jack Sparrow.

Do you guys see Ledger-Joker as something definitive, or merely as an interesting take on the character? I'm not a Batman expert, but I see him as an interesting take, but not a definitive vision. You could say that with so many comics and so much history, what is a definitive Joker? But Ledger's Joker is not quite my vision of the character. He's a good take. He's entirely appropriate for the film itself, and for Nolan's universe.

The question extends to the Nolan films thus far. Are these something definitive, or an interesting take on the Batman mythos? It may be... Well, it is the best version of it in film... But just because these films may not be surpassed in quality doesn't mean I don't think there's room for another Batman film series down the road.

The Nolan films are the best version of Batman ON FILM.

The best live-action version of Frank Miller and Steve Englehart's Batman on film, definitely.

But they're also mindbogglingly one-note, and pretty much humourless, leaden pictures. Unable to laugh at themselves, or shed any kind of mature commentary on the Batman mythos - all which Tim Burton mastered to a T. They play like a goddamned film student's thesis. Overwritten, overwrought, overlong. Waste of my time and money.


I'm also aware of the irony.

Anne Hathaway ripped her suit, in the area of her ass, during a fight sequence. Hope the cameras were rolling.

A possible spoiler has been leaked: http://www.chud.com/57241/the-dark-knight-rises-gets-a-familiar-face/

Very cool.

You just made my day, Python.

It's Qui-Gon's Force ghost!

Perhaps we'll see the death of his wife. It can tie into Talia.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Perhaps we'll see the death of his wife.

And discover she was kidnapped by Gotham sex trade...

I don't think it would be one character too many, I wish they'd have Oswald Cobblepot in the a small role. As an informant. Maybe a couple scenes, nothing big. I could see Mark Sheppard.

Apparently a teaser trailer will premiere at Harry Potter screenings next Friday. http://www.hypable.com/harry-potter/2011/07/08/the-dark-knight-rises-teaser-trailer-to-premiere-with/

Well, at least I like the Potter flicks so I'll likely catch it.

I'll catch it on the internets.

What Tux said. I still havent seen Part 1 of Deathly Hallows, so I figure I'll just catch it all on DVD when it comes out.


If DVD still exists by then.

The girlfriend is dragging me to see Harry Potter at midnight Thursday night, so at least I'll get to see the trailer on the big screen.

And it looks like it's confirmed that the trailer exists and will appear with Potter. The Alberta Film Ratings people have already classified it and theaters are being asked to attach it to Potter (two links in this sentence).

Makes sense.

At least there's something to gain from a Harry Potter film viewing.

At this point I'm almost more excited for the animated "Batman: Year One" movie. I'm still not really sold on Ben Mackenzie as Bruce, but definitely sold on Bryan Cranston as Gordon.

Here's the teaser poster: http://screenrant.com/dark-knight-rises-teaser-poster-rob-123094/

As I mentioned to Wade on Twitter, it really doesn't look Batman-esque at first glance. More like a Roland Emmerich flick, instead.

Yup. Not too fond of it.

I understand what they're going for. Naturally, Nolan is running a tight ship and keeping things under wraps. Hell, it's a teaser poster, and that poster teases.

However, it's just sort of dull. Yeah, the Batman logo makes it obvious what this poster is for and the crumbling buildings makes for some obvious metaphor to the state of Gotham, but other than that, it's just not very aesthetically pleasing.

It also looks like like they crossed this poster for "The Dark Knight" (clicky) with imagery from "Inception." I suppose that's not too surprising, though.

Nolan's got a thing for monotonous modern cityscapes, in particular the financial downtown districts. In Burton's films, the art direction was the most memorable feature.