Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Pre-Release Thread
#71
I wasn't questioning his intelligence, just his line of thinking on that particular issue. Judging by his numerous posts, especially those Buffy dissections, I'm sure Shwartz is smarter than I am.
Reply
#72
I can see Catwoman stumbling on Batman while he is underground, or you know Batman stumbling on her, while being chased by Deadshot or Deathstroke. I guess another version of Catwoman would not turn me off of the movie.
Reply
#73
I know her lack of canon + recasting makes her feel smaller than other characters, but considering Begins ends with the promise of Wayne retiring with Rachel and her fried chicken situation in DK, I really really doubt a Batman retired, Wayne frolicking in peace with Selina ending is likely.
Reply
#74
I agree with you on that one. Nolan said he originally had the Joker in TDK to set him up to be the main villain in TDKR, but obviously that didn't work out. These are people who think big picture, so I think if they were going to set-up a Bruce Wayne/Selina Kyle hook-up they would have introduced the character by now. Him jumping from his life long love Rachel to someone who is essentially a criminal doesn't seem like it fits for the character they've constructed.
Reply
#75
Catwoman is a character than can understand and relate to him, which is a thing he's never experienced, he'd find that appealing, irrespective of her criminal leanings; it's the central premise of their relationship in the comics. Also, he's still a guy for Pete's sake.

And who's to say how much time has passed between films? I doubt he'd be dry humping Catwoman on Rachel's still smoldering corpse.
Reply
#76
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
I think you meant, " What on earth are you talking about?"

And yes THANK YOU Shwartz, no one realised The Dark Knight was popular or that it made a lot of money. No shit.

Yes it can redeem itself if one didn't like the franchise. Just because other people loved it, or it made a lot of money doesn't mean I liked it, so maybe it needs to redeem itself to me. I don't rate movies based upon their popularity or money. And honestly it was in jest, a bad stab at sarcasm.

But even if it wasn't, is this how you view movies? Based on other people's opinions and its popularity? That's dumb.

Easy, friend-o. Nothing in the original post set off my sarcasm detector, so I was trying to express honest incredulity. The reason for the incredulity was not that I couldn't fathom someone having an against-the-grain opinion on a comic book movie (this isn't the first time I've been on the internet), or that such an opinion would be objectively wrong. It was because that terminology suggests some kind of drastic change in approach, which is not what anyone with a foot in reality expects from the third entry in a franchise that's been a huge financial and critical success.

Nothing personal. I'd be similarly surprised if someone suggested the next Transformers needed to really shake things up to redeem itself. I have no love for those movies (and they don't get much in the way of critical acclaim), but I'm sure no one involved in their production views them as remotely "broke".
Reply
#77
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny
View Post
Catwoman is a character than can understand and relate to him, which is a thing he's never experienced, he'd find that appealing, irrespective of her criminal leanings; it's the central premise of their relationship in the comics. Also, he's still a guy for Pete's sake.

And who's to say how much time has passed between films? I doubt he'd be dry humping Catwoman on Rachel's still smoldering corpse.

Honestly, you won me over with that argument. If they go that direction I'd be all for it. I know that angle is the comic universe's bread and butter, but I think it would be a welcome aspect to Nolan's Batman.
Reply
#78
Yea, it wasn't obviously sarcastic at all, my bad. Other than that if I was trying to stir shit, my choice of words was a bit off, redeem might not have been the most acurate word.

But seriously Nolan should look to improve the action this time around. He tried to address it in TDK, the action in that one was far less choppy and had fewer close ups. Most of the action in TDK was shot with wide lenses which was good. But I actually appreciated the action in Returns more since Batman just seemed slow and clunky in TDK, the villains seemed to attack around his handicap. The same arguement can be made about Tim Burtons Batman, where Batman was hobbeled even more than Nolan's version. But at least Tim Burton shot his action with moments of flair and awesomeness.
Reply
#79
Quote:

Originally Posted by matches
View Post
I agree with you on that one. Nolan said he originally had the Joker in TDK to set him up to be the main villain in TDKR, but obviously that didn't work out.

When did he say that?
Reply
#80
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
Yea, it wasn't obviously sarcastic at all, my bad. Other than that if I was trying to stir shit, my choice of words was a bit off, redeem might not have been the most acurate word.

But seriously Nolan should look to improve the action this time around. He tried to address it in TDK, the action in that one was far less choppy and had fewer close ups. Most of the action in TDK was shot with wide lenses which was good. But I actually appreciated the action in Returns more since Batman just seemed slow and clunky in TDK, the villains seemed to attack around his handicap. The same arguement can be made about Tim Burtons Batman, where Batman was hobbeled even more than Nolan's version. But at least Tim Burton shot his action with moments of flair and awesomeness.

No arguments there. The vehicular action in Nolan's films is pretty great, but the hand-to-hand is inching upward but still subpar, which is weird for a blockbuster action series.

One area where I think Nolan is doing fine is the Batman's character. While I'm not opposed to the idea (mainly, like I said, because it would be a for sure ending ending), but I don't think it's the only possible way to wrap things up. Nolan's on a very hot streak, and he's getting as much benefit of the doubt as I give out at this point.
Reply
#81
Quote:

Originally Posted by Schwartz
View Post
No arguments there. The vehicular action in Nolan's films is pretty great, but the hand-to-hand is inching upward but still subpar, which is weird for a blockbuster action series.

One area where I think Nolan is doing fine is the Batman's character. While I'm not opposed to the idea (mainly, like I said, because it would be a for sure ending ending), but I don't think it's the only possible way to wrap things up. Nolan's on a very hot streak, and he's getting as much benefit of the doubt as I give out at this point.

I still think the final confrontation with the Joker is very effective in TDK. The way the Joker starts to bark like a dog and beat Wayne with that animalistic fury is very disturbing. Nolan can bring grit and 'punch' to an action scene when he needs to, IMHO. The opening car park fight too features some perfectly serviceable hand to hand action
Reply
#82
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
But seriously Nolan should look to improve the action this time around. He tried to address it in TDK, the action in that one was far less choppy and had fewer close ups. Most of the action in TDK was shot with wide lenses which was good.

I believe it will be very similar. Those actions scenes were shot in IMAX which Pfister is planning to incorporate again. Closeups don't really work in a medium meant to show scope and depth. Not to mention the faster lenses are the shorter primes.
Reply
#83
Something just occurred to me

IDEA: TDKR should take place during winter. It would be thematically appropriate and visually compelling
Reply
#84
Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate
View Post
Something just occurred to me

IDEA: TDKR should take place during winter. It would be thematically appropriate and visually compelling

Do you mean because the film will end with spring? Or because BB started in Winter?
Reply
#85
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nabster
View Post
I think you meant, " What on earth are you talking about?"

And yes THANK YOU Shwartz, no one realised The Dark Knight was popular or that it made a lot of money. No shit.

Yes it can redeem itself if one didn't like the franchise. Just because other people loved it, or it made a lot of money doesn't mean I liked it, so maybe it needs to redeem itself to me. I don't rate movies based upon their popularity or money. And honestly it was in jest, a bad stab at sarcasm.

But even if it wasn't, is this how you view movies? Based on other people's opinions and its popularity? That's dumb.

Switch out the Batman trilogy and put in Raimi's Spiderman trilogy and you'd mask my thoughts perfectly.

Hate the title of the film but Nolan just can't be beat right now in my eyes hoping this one is really special and Hardy being cast is already getting me excited.
Reply
#86
I could see them running into a Green Goblin-type design problem if they opt for Black Mask.
Reply
#87
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather
View Post
I could see them running into a Green Goblin-type design problem if they opt for Black Mask.

There's not a single thing Nolan could achieve thematically with Black Mask that couldn't be equally achieved with Deadshot while also employing a rogues gallery character that fits much more realistically into his Nolanverse.
Reply
#88
Black Mask's millionnaire history and relationship with Bruce could be put to use. He's got that over Deadshot.
Reply
#89
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather
View Post
Black Mask's millionnaire history and relationship with Bruce could be put to use. He's got that over Deadshot.

Not quite when you consider that the Deadshot that was rejigged in the Gotham Knight cartoon bridging Begins with TDK also had a socialite alter-ego...

Deadshot appears as one of the villains in Batman: Gotham Knight voiced by Jim Meskimen. According to the writers of Batman: Gotham Knight, Deadshot was given a visual makeover for the movie. In the story, he is presented as an "anti-Batman", with a sophisticated socialite secret identity as his disguise. They also describe Deadshot and Batman's battles as very interesting because "it's battle of man using guns against one who isn't".
Reply
#90
The most basic wiki description of Deadshot basically screams "Dark Knight Rises plot synopsis". Have him take out a Joker-inspired villain while trying to take control of the vaccuum left by the Joker himself, have Batman not know Deadshot's all criminal and think, like the Joker was a response to his existence, Deadshot is the consequence of his Dark Knight myth thing, do some brooding and whining and then eventually have whatever third act clusterfuck Nolan will go for this time. Or, if you guys are so desperate for Catwoman, have her distract Batman for half the movie and, because this is Nolan after all and Catwoman is a woman, have Deadshot kill her and get Batman to a position in which he might actually become the Dark Knight he said he was to cover up Dent's thing.
Reply
#91
No one is desperate to see Catwoman, I'm just arguing against the vehement and wrong-headed insistence that she be excluded (that she's been done before can be said of the Joker and Two-Face, and it's a bullshit reason). By virtue of being the better known character and the one with the most history out of all of the posited villains, she simply has it all over Deadshot and Black Mask (though, admittedly, they'd be great), she's certainly more appropriate for the end of a series than Killer Fucking Croc. Seriously, that's my biggest beef w/ that idea outside of Nolan's aversion to overtly fantastical characters (yeah, yeah, I've seen the Azzarello version). Who the fuck wants to see Killer Croc as ostensibly the last villain Batman will face?
Reply
#92
This is obviously a moot point now that Ledger's gone, but in Hell would Batman and Gordon's Dent lie stand when The Joker is very much alive and probably squawking about it to anyone who will listen from his cell at Arkham?
Reply
#93
True, because when I think of the Joker, I think reliable source.
Reply
#94
He would just be dismissed as crazy. How often do the rantings of people in padded cells make it into the press anyway?
Reply
#95
Joker: It's a conspiracy, Dent killed those people, I drove him to it!

Doctor: Well, that's very interesting, Mr. Joker, and I'd like to hear all about it, but right now lets focus on cleaning up all that feces you smeared on the walls of your cell, we really must do something about that.


Seriously, though, it looks like a plothole, and maybe it is, but I think the Joker would dig that and not be a snitch about it. Besides, he caused them to break their moral code, win/win.
Reply
#96
Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny
View Post
Seriously, though, it looks like a plothole, and maybe it is, but I think the Joker would dig that and not be a snitch about it. Besides, he caused them to break their moral code, win/win.

I think he'd be more inclined to figure out a way he could use Gordon and Batman's cover up to put them in even more untenable moral positions. The Joker could care less about credit - he's interested in creating chaos and corrupting authority figures.

And this is completely outside the text, but I always figured, in TDK, that the Joker put the bounty on the accountant's head because he figured out that knowing Batman's "true" identity was beside the point for their weird dance - the Joker, like Rachel, intuitively figured out that Batman was or was becoming that person's real identity, with the every day life persona being a mask.
Reply
#97
Quote:

Originally Posted by grubstreeter

He would just be dismissed as crazy. How often do the rantings of people in padded cells make it into the press anyway?

When they're charismatic terrorists/mass murderers? Fairly often. Also, there's a whole trial process where Joker would get to flap his gums.

I think in the modern world of conspiracy theories and 24/7, Joker would have his say on the subject if he wanted to, and a sizeable amount of people would give it credence. Buuuut, like Johnny, I also think he'd get a kick out of keeping schtum and holding it over Gordon and Bats.
Reply
#98
Quote:

Originally Posted by Francis Wolcott
View Post
I know her lack of canon + recasting makes her feel smaller than other characters, but considering Begins ends with the promise of Wayne retiring with Rachel and her fried chicken situation in DK, I really really doubt a Batman retired, Wayne frolicking in peace with Selina ending is likely.

No but ending a film where he has inspired the right kind of reaction from Gothamites, fakes his death and then wanders off into the sunset in an inverted echo of his prodigal arc in Begins would work, IMHO.

Frankly, I then feel tempted to fanwak a ten year later (in real time) Nolan DKR version where it didn't turn out alright for Gotham after all.

I'll stop now...
Reply
#99
I would love to see a faithful film version of DKR, but it wouldn't be complete without Batman kicking Superman's ass, and I don't see WB going for that. Mainly in straight-to-DVD animated thing, but never a big budget film.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather
View Post
When they're charismatic terrorists/mass murderers? Fairly often. Also, there's a whole trial process where Joker would get to flap his gums.

I think in the modern world of conspiracy theories and 24/7, Joker would have his say on the subject if he wanted to, and a sizeable amount of people would give it credence. Buuuut, like Johnny, I also think he'd get a kick out of keeping schtum and holding it over Gordon and Bats.

Exactly how much credence did the general public give to the ravings of Charles Manson/Timothy McVeigh/Saddam Hussein during their respective trials? And those guys didn't even have the gumption to dress as homicidal clowns with distinctive scars and send self-identifying home videos of themselves torturing people to major media outlets prior to their capture.

When it comes to TDK, there are plot holes, and there are Plot Holes. This ain't one of them.
Reply
So is Ramirez brought in on the conspiracy as well as Gordon's family? Given that Dent only punched her in the face and all.

I admit, I'm being pedantic and I love that resolution at the end of the film. There's just some interesting ramifications there.
Reply
Quote:

Originally Posted by jackspades22
View Post
When did he say that?

Someone who's better at the Internet than me can probably find the exact quote, but I read somewhere legit that that was the case.

ETA: I want to say Empire or Entertainment Weekly. I see an "E".
Reply
Nolan's never said that publicly, but Goyer's very early trilogy outline did apparently have the Joker coming back to throw acid in Dent's face in the third film. If they changed that, it's not far-fetched to assume that prior to Ledger's death, Nolan nixed the idea of the Joker appearing in the third film altogether, or maybe not, who knows.
Reply
Sure.
Reply
Every time I read the title I can't help thinking "If God is Willing da Knight Don't Rise"
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)