f13.net

Didn't see a thread for this yet, so I figured I'd make one now that some of the main casting has been announced. (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=73379) 



Not a huge fan of Bane, but Nolan obviously gets the benefit of the doubt at this point.

At least they are being consistent with Bale. I loathed the first set of movies for the fact that they found anyone they wanted to plug into the role and off they went. Surprisingly, I thought Keaton actually did the best.

He definitely did the best, even if I never totally bought him as a millionaire playboy all the ladies swoon for.   If we could have Kilmer's Wayne with Keaton's Batman, that'd be the best.

Bane, though. Bah.  Still, probably a better choice than another Penguin/ Catwoman flick.

Give me my fucking proper treatment of Mr. Freeze god damnit.

I take it Schwarzenegger left you... cold?  8-)

Not overly thrilled with Hathaway as Catwoman, nor the choice of Bane but Nolan has a lot of slack with me, and I liked Hardy in Inception, so we'll see.

Yea - Hathaway seems a bit... nonathletic.

I'm hoping for being surprised.

Michelle Pfeiffer wasn't exactly bursting with muscle either, and she was IMO a good Catwoman.

Hardy bulked up big time for a low budget UK flick called Bronson. He was pretty damned good in the role and possibly one of the reasons why Nolan cast him. Not sure about why he chose Bane in the first place but there we go.

(http://content8.flixster.com/photo/11/93/94/11939418_gal.jpg)

The question about Bane really is, how is Nolan going to revamp the character.  I don't see Nolan's Bane being an exact copy of the comic one. 

As for Hathaway as Catwoman... I'm pretty meh about the whole thing.  I think I'd rather see ScarJo in more tight leather.   :drill:

Or, maybe, January Jones as Emma Frost in X-Men:

(http://www.bleedingcool.com/wp-content/uploads//2011/01/first-class-2-570x380.jpg)

Yeah, why bane.

Since I ended up sticking my foot in my mouth about Ledger, I have no problem with Hathaway playing Catwoman. In Nolan we trust. As long as we forget about Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.

I think Hathaway will do great. Better than ScarJo could do with the roll.

Summer Glau please.  :grin:

I don't know, Scarlett rolling around would be pretty hot.

Because Bane can work. Read "Bane of the Demon" where it makes it quite clear that Bane is astoundingly intelligent, devious and cunning, perfectly sane and has all that venom shit that gives him superstrength. He's the Mary Sue of bad guys. He also gets taken on by R'as al Ghul as an apprentice and heir to the League of Assassins and joins with him to unleash a plague on Gotham. So, basically, links back to Batman Begins.

With Catwoman, you've got the potential link to Carmine Falcone (see "Batman: Dark Victory") with Selina Kyle possibly being his illegitmate daughter. Dark Victory was not only the sequel to Long Halloween (which may well have been the basis for a lot of "The Dark Knight"- Harvey Dent turning into Two-Face, various panels being adapted into scenes) but also has Batman brooding about feeling like he was responsible for Harvey Dent becoming Two Face.

If they introduce Azrael into the film as well then you've potentially got a natural segue from The Dark Knight: Batman's in hiding because he wants to give the appearance of having killed all of the people Two Face actually killed. So if you follow the Knightfall route then, after Bane cripples him (as revenge for killing Liam Neeson perhaps?), he's replaced by Azrael who actually does start killing people.  ?????  Profiit.

If this is to be a trilogy then it would make sense for Nolan to tie up all the loose ends that he's left. I can see how using Bane and Catwoman might be able to achieve that.  I might also be totally and utterly wrong and this will become Nolan's "Batman and Robin".

I can only assume it's because a guy who gets really strong through chemical/drug use isn't too far out there for the kind of Batman stuff Nolan has done.

He's a fine character in some incarnations, the previous grunting movie character definitely didn't do him justice.

People were skeptical of Heath Ledger as the Joker at first. I concur, benefit of the doubt.

This is what I thought too. He fits with the more dark, realistic Batman franchise Nolan has given us.

I had actually hoped they'd go with Hugo Strange, as I think the basic typical "Strange v. Batman" story fits Nolan's conception of the character very well. Actually I wouldn't be all that surprised if they still worked him in, as Strange used to have "monster men" assistants who were basically very similar to Bane.

But yeah, there are plenty of Bane appearances in the comics where he's a very interesting, complex character, including his current portrayal in Secret Six. His costume has always been pretty terribad though.

I would put forth that bane will be infinitely more interesting as a real person and not some cgi leifield-esque monster

If it helps any, they're using Hugo Strange in the next Batman game.

He's Batman's flip side: parent's killed when he was a child (mother murdered in front of him iirc), raised in a prison, forced to rely on only himself to survive, carves his own way in the world. By comparison, Wayne was a spoiled rich kid with a case of survivor's guilt.

So would you classify him then as more chaotic neutral with anger management issues rather than chaotic evil?

Hathaway in a catsuit, I can't really complain.

He's a sociopath, not a misunderstood artist.

Avengers comes out a couple months before this, at the beginning of May 2012.  You can get your ScarJo fix then.

Also, the Spider-man reboot comes at the beginning of July, and the Superman reboot is targeted for that December.  2012 is pretty much just an X-Men movie away from having every major Superhero movie franchise represented.  Actually, there's a good chance Aronofsky's Wolverine movie will be coming out in 2012, so that base might be more or less covered as well.

Yeah, the interesting aspect of Bane was never the mindless wrestler schtick they showcased in the other movies. He appeared in Gotham and launched a campaign of crime not only against Batman but the other criminals. His goals were twofold 1) Crush Batman and 2) Seize control of the Gotham underworld. Personally I think a South American criminal genius sociopath sets up a really interesting opponent and also segues nicely in terms of villain from the Joker. I imagine Bane will be the complete opposite, coming into a Gotham underworld that's been shaken by a crazy man for the sake of crazy with a Plan.

Although even with Nolan's excellent track record if I find he's planning on sticking Azrael into and doing a total rerun of Knightfall I'll actually predict failure because that would be stupid. I do not think he'll do it and I don't think he'll be dragging those other characters in, it'd be a total about turn on the whole focus on Batman the films have had.

I'm not commenting on this one at all.  Nolan has surpassed my every expectation with the Dark Knight films.  I'm not saying he can do no wrong;  I'm saying I'm gonna wait until he's done, with great anticipation.

I thought Joker wouldn't work at a couple of points - when first cast and then when we got the first stills released.  I was wildly wrong.  I thought that putting two villians into it would make a mockery of the second film, like Batman films before it.  I was really, really wrong.  I thought the Rachel character idea in both films was silly.  I was...well, kinda right on that one, but hey ho, they killed her.

I'm gonna wait and just assume it's going to be brilliant for now.

Tom Hardy is a fantastic actor, Nolan does have a knack for picking some genuine talent to work with.

As with the majority, I'm just going to wait and see how this one plays out, with faith in Nolan's abilities.

Tom Hardy is very good.. So good that Bane is a waste of time for him. I hope Nolan writes it where Hardy himself stands out.

And if anyone hasn't seen "Charlie fucking Bronson!" then they should.

He was also good in that shitty Star Trek Nemesis movie, but the fact that it bombed depressed him.. that was his first big role, and apparently he went down the drain for awhile because of it.

EDIT: I will add that they are good choices for Nolan's "ethos", so to speak. Catwoman is basically just a ninja burgler and Bane's a juicer.

He was good in RocknRolla too.

Did I miss the end of the last movie or something?

I only asked because I never thought bane was all that cool. Hes like a Grey hulk from issue #377. The whole back breaking thing, its like there was this time period where all superheros had to have backs broken. It was silly. Dc's Doomsday (or the other way around, who cares).

So many better villains in Batman history, with so much more character.

I know, I am likely speaking blasphemy.

Apparently?

I didn't know he was in that. Big Tom Hardy fan I am, eh?

I guess I'll add it to netflix.

Like I/others were saying, they kind of fit Nolan's schtick.

I mean, in a certain light, there are tons of more elements to mine out of Batman's story, but I think it isn't easy to write where them as plausible criminals. At the very least, it takes some time to find the right angle. At their core, the Riddler or the Penguin, for example, are pretty fucking stupid in a comic booky way that Joker or Catwoman are not (even though I like them myself heh).

Shit, my memory is bad. Had to go read a recap of how that ended.

Batman villains that have at least some recognition with the general populace or casual fans, and that work in Nolan's gritty realist theme?  I think Bane and Catwoman are it.

Scarecrow, Twoface, Joker have been done.
Riddler is too comic booky.
Penguin is pretty comic booky, and we already have Devito's Penguin who was about as gritty as you could go with that character.

Many of the recent/new villains don't have any name recognition with the general populace.  Many of the villains from the Animated shows don't work unless your world is okay with super-science/vaguely supernatural villainy (Clayface, Poison Ivy, Mr Freeze, Killer Croc, etc.)  You also don't want to go back to another crazed charismatic sociopath right after you did the Joker.

Bane, as an intelligent crimelord who uses steriods/PEDs, works pretty well I think.  And Catwoman lets you explore the gray morality area that Batman is in now that he's Public Enemy Number One, if you go with a Catwoman using crime as a tool of revenge against those who wronged her.

It was suggested in another thread somewhere, but a Riddler in the vague shape of Kevin Spacey's character out of Seven would have worked very well in the Nolanverse.

I agree but I also think that Riddler is too close to Joker as someone's already mentioned.

Also, still laughing at Bunk.  It was 2 3rds of the way through the movie and everyone cheered.  How could you miss it ?

I think you could draw a line between them, but I think you're right and trying to make the villains more distinct in personality is a good step.

I wholly expect Nolan and Tom Hardy to make Bane their own though, and I have faith that it will be pretty fantastic.

Yeah, the more I think about it, it's going to work... The only reason why I commented that Bane is not good enough for him is because he's mostly a masked character. Either way though, Tom Hardy knows how to play up the "scary". He's intimidating as hell as Bronson.. I can only imagine that Nolan is going to play this up.

I can see Nolan doing a decent Bane, just don't give him a stupid mask and make the origin story a little more messy and urban.

Fuck Catwoman.

Catwoman is fan service almost to the same degree as Venom. I can appreciate Catwoman has had so much retcon you can do pretty much anything you damn well please with her, but you can see how this is going to go, 'Oh lordy lordy an aloof supervillian manipulating the peons for personal advantage, and a slightly dim hero who is public enemy number one, what shall we do'. I hope I'm wrong, and Nolan does something surprising and weird.

I never really understand why people think the Penguin wouldn't work, the only thing you are tied to is a taste for evening wear, and one or both of a speech or walking impediment. Clayface is easy enough as well, you just make him a non-supernatural expert mimic and away you go.

As for Ivy, Freeze, Croc, they are tougher, but Nolan's world can stand super-science and pretty far out characters, so long as it is presented on a suitable urban scale. The Joker was pretty fucked up, and Scarecrow went through most of the film using science indistinguishable from magic. The bigger issue would be how you fit them into the themes and human shit that the film needs, Joker, Scarecrow, Liam Neeson, Penguin, Clayface, Riddler even Bane are easier to give a psychological hook so they can interact better with the Bale angst machine.



This is fucking great - I mean, this defined the entire end of the film.

Also I really hate the title.

I'm guessing that's a marketing dept special.

I think stuff like the Penguin and Riddler veers more into the fanservice category than Catwoman. I'm a geek myself - but also one steeped in what other people like too, and I can't stand it when even geekier fans aren't in touch with that. Like they have to incorporate every random element into a story. Fan Fiction is the bottom of the barrel of this category, but we've already a seen a few movies do it now too (Spidey 3, X-men 3, and Wolverine to be exact). That's exactly what you'd get with the Penguin and Riddler, and not even  Nolan's (and his brother's?) writing skills would have an easy time making them work.

Besides, there has never been a good trilogy in the history of film. They all jump the shark. And no, LOTR isn't it.. At least one of the sequels are lame, damnit. I'm not sure which. So.. I'd say just for this alone that Nolan should try not fucking it up and finally make a good trilogy for once.  :grin:

Back to the Future  :awesome_for_real:

Back to the future was on 'ok' triology. As far as catwoman is concerned it's not fanservice so much as adding a central part of the batman mythos to the story. If you ask someone to name people in the batman world you'd almost always come up with batman/robin/joker/catwoman.

The Man with No Name.

So are most CEO's and I wouldnt qualify them as chaotic evil. I never read the comics so Im trying to put it into D&D language I understand.

Oh yeah?

Well... Screw the both of you for being right.

Hmm.. well, I'll just tone it down to "there hasn't been a good comic book trilogy" then.  :oh_i_see:

Apparently you missed the last quarter of it.  It was a fairly significant plot point.

The Lord of the Rings was a fantastic Movie Trilogy.  I WILL END YOU.

RAWR, STAR WARS DEBATE !!!

*steps out from behind a bush right on cue*

You rang?  :why_so_serious:

I think Riddler could work very well, but I understand their reluctance to use him. It's not like he's been well-used in the comics recently either. Black Mask would make a good villain too, but it would probably stray too close to Joker crazy territory for comfort. And I mean the original Black Mask character, not what they've done with him lately. He started as a cosmetics magnate whose cosmetics horribly disfigured women who used them, who was obsessed with the masks we wear and who made all his flunkies wear all kinds of masks to do crime. But again, we've already seen a villain descending into madness, so no need to repeat.

If anyone could do Bane well, Nolan could so I'll reserve judgement until I see the Nacho Libre mask.

El Mariachi

In that case what was so terrible about Superman I-III?

Lethal Weapon

Alien

High School Musical

 :uhrr:  I didn't  hate 3, but it was really really weak and way beneath the other two in terms of overall quality for the series.   If you're counting it, you may as well count Star Wars because A3 was equal to ROTJ in terms of strength.

I think we're just naming trilogies now.

The last one blew goats.

Well shit.

Hmmm, the only problem I had with 'n 3 is that it didn't belong in the Alien trilogy. It plays fine as a standalone movie, but alienates its audience by invalidating the entire second film and not having any real connection to the universe established in 'n and 'ns.

I have no issue crossing it off the list of good trilogies for that reason alone, but Alien 3 isn't actually a bad film.

Three was great.

Not that I missed it, just that my memory is now that bad. I've only actually watched Returns once.

Good Trilogies...

Resident Evil? *ducks* 
um, Gingersnaps? (actually, I think it was, even if Schild is the only other person here likely to have seen any of them)

Personally, I'm glad they went with Catwoman. To me she's iconic and unlike some of his other iconic villains, not mega cheezy. Bane strikes me as a weird choice, as so many people, like myself who hasn't read a Batman since Killing Joke, have never heard of him outside of the dumb goon in the Schumacker drek.

And please, all of you feel free to continue mocking my inability to remember 1/3 of that movie. Even if it upsets me, I'm quite sure i'll have forgotten about it by next week.

Indy. Temple of Doom gets a bad rap, imo.

Well, yeah.  Now we've seen Crystal Skull...

 :ye_gods:
 :uhrr:

I know right? Crystal Skull's aliens were really at odds with the series Judeo-Christian mythos, and that refrigerator escape was so unrealistic that it ruined the rest of the movie. Not at all like Temple of Doom with it's real functioning Hindu magic, and the heroes being totally unhurt after falling out of an airplane and down a fucking mountain in a rubber raft.

 :oh_i_see:

No, Temple of Doom was pretty full of stupid too. Just not as badly done as Skull.

Really ?  You're attacking ME with THAT ?

You really think I'd be annoyed at the Hindu Magic after Gods CB Radio melted face ?  Aliens didn't bother me at all.  The film being awful kinda did.

And another thing ....

Oh wait.  I see what you're doing !!!

Okay people.

Superman I-III:  What?  Superman III (which I have seen in the last few months) is fucking terrible.  Tar-kryptonite?  Richard Pryor? (He's awesome as a comic, but almost every movie he was in was shit.)  Unrealistic nonsense with computers?  Superman outsmarts the computer with water?  Blatant advertising of using the awful Superman arcade game as how the computer targets Superman with missiles, right down to giving the targetter points?

Superman II is a bit uneven as well, but it's tough to notice because Zod is so awesome.

Aliens:  The third has pacing issues, and just doesn't work as a suspense/thriller flick.  I tried to watch this again not too long ago and nearly dozed off.  It desperately wants to be an art movie and isn't, and during that process pisses on many of the things from the previous movies.  Not to mention the big ending doesn't make sense.  Aliens 3 had some potential as a non-Alien franchise character based thriller (by jettisoning the rest of the Alien universe stuff), but it shit the bed as an Alien film.

El Mariachi:  Inconsistent tone and movies.  I didn't particularly like the first two (the first one is not good as a film, but amazing as a no budget piece) and love the third.... but they are all so different that any person is going to like or not like one of them.



The Gingersnaps movies are actually pretty good.  Lycanthropy as a metaphor for puberty/sexual awakening.

This is his Star Wars 1-3 tactic.  Don't get suckered in.  

Someone must have said "George Lucas" 3 times.

I hated Temple of Doom when I was 7 - and it was my birthday when I saw it.. the day when all 7 year olds should be jolly.. but teh hate was strong even then.

Even Alien Resurrection was better than Alien 3.

Ok, I have to ask. How the hell could you like the third movie but not the first two? The third movie meandered about for no good reason for entirely too long, made little to no sense even in the weird world of the Mariachi assassin and even managed to make me think Johnny Depp had a bad performance. What about it did you like?

The Penguin (as you say) doesn't have a broader sociological/psychological hook, without going back to the well of making him CRRRAZZZY.  I mean, someone like Peter Dinklage as a man ostercized by society and trying to take revenge would be cool but it's back to Joker territory.  Penguin as an urbane thief lacks the gravitas.

The reason Clayface works in the animated shows is that he's an accidental monster...  you feel sorry for him at the same time as he horrifies you.  You lose that hook if he's just a guy that's really good at disguises.


Scarecrow's dust (plus the fact that he's actually a psychologist) was only a little bit over the top.  About the same as ninjas, or Joker and his amazing predictive/planning powers.  

A dude with a freeze ray?  (And I loved Freeze in the Animated shows.)  A woman who can control plants?  A half-man half-croc?  

It's really the difference between Charles Atlas Superpowers (vaguely believable until you stop and think about it) and blatant Superpowers.

I liked the odd, quirky characters meandering through the disparate plots until it all ties up...  And I loved Johnny Depp.

The first movie had atrocious acting and was a one-note fish out of water piece.  Again, amazing as a no budget film.

The second was just too over the top, and was obviously designed around big over the top set pieces.  It wasn't bad, as an action movie, but it wasn't a very good action movie. 

Indeed.  Realism here is the key.

That's what shocked me about both the first and second films.  Sure, it was over the top but you never once got the feeling of 'Hang on a second, this is total bullshit'.

Two-Face in particular was just bloody brilliant, mostly due the immense amount of build up throughout the film.  The only times I felt cheated were the Sonar from 'everyone in Gotham' (really ?) and when Harvey, after being shot, stapled, burned, mangled, incinerated and thrown from a car at 40, fell 5 feet onto a shingle shore and DIED.

 :uhrr:

He lost most of his hit points being shot, stapled, burned, mangled, incinerated and being thrown from a car at 40.  He only had a couple left when he fell.  :why_so_serious:

Phone Sonar thing still seems more plausible to me then that weaponized microwave generator thing that boiled the water in the pipes, but ONLY the water from the first movie. That's the only bit from the first movie that made me go "eeeeh really?".

Otherwise the first was really fucking good at making me go "you know what, if a billionaire really did devote his entire life to this shit, that could actually maybe happen!"

A lot of Batman villains (and assoicates, too) can work in the pseudo-real Nolan setting with some tweaks. Even Robin could work as a field operative in training.

The actor I feel most sorry for here is Christian Bale. Batman really is the least interesting character in the films. Let's hope Nolan learns how to shoot a good fight scene for this one.

The 4th one wouldn't be part of a trilogy, which is the technicality I am using to not have to think about it.

Bale's Batman was undoubtedly the centrepiece of the first film, and he did well there (strange growly voice aside). In the second film he was eclipsed by Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart I'd agree

Yeah, I think that's a good comparison.  The first Batman movie was about Batman, and he did a great job.  The 2nd, not at all really, and they did a great job with the other characters. 

I was reeeeeally iffy when I first read that it was Bane, since he seamed way to unrealistic for this universe.  But now that everybody has talked about it, I've come around.  Yeah, I could see there being some violent street tough who is taking some scary military weaponized form of pcp that makes him crazy strong in this universe.  Looking forward to the movie.

I recall hearing earlier that Nolan said he was going to have this film very firmly end the franchise.  That true?

He's ending his trilogy and wrapping up the story that he wants to tell.  I don't think he's killing off Batman or doing anything that would prohibit WB from continuing the franchise if they chose to.  With Nolan and Bale moving on after this though, whatever comes next for Batman movies will likely be someone else's take on the character rather than trying to follow what Nolan has done.

One possibility is Aronofsky who is turning an old idea he had for a Batman movie into a graphic novel (http://io9.com/5735881/darren-aronofskys-batman-reboot-idea-coming-to-comics-++-and-then-possibly-movies).  It sounds like he's hoping it might get him a crack at doing a Batman movie.  It also sounds like his take on Batman (if the linked review to an old script he an Frank Miller worked on is accurate) is completely bizarre and would probably piss fans off, so I'm not sure if he'll get the job.

The first gingersnap was good. the rest? Not so much.

As much as I'd love to see Arnofosky's take on Frank Miller's excellent Batman: Year One story, I'm pretty sure not only would it never get off the ground, most of the good bits have been covered in between the lines of Begins and Dark Knight.

If Nolan 3 is as good as the last two, only a complete idiot would attempt the follow up. So you'll either get a 6 year hiatus or a crap film.

Hush could have the makings for a Nolan Batman villain.

If the director, the star, and the writers are all leaving the franchise you're going to have a multi-year hiatus anyway just to sort out the behind the scenes stuff and line up a new star.


My memory is fuzzy, but how long does Warner Bros have the film rights?  I know they're losing the Superman film rights in the next couple years and I think they are losing the animated rights to DC works pretty soon as well. 

Time Warner owns Warner Bros which owns DC Entertainment.

You might be thinking of Disney which acquired Marvel in 2009.

I submit "Toy Story" as a good trilogy from start to finish.

Superman definitely has rights issues, since they are reverting to the original creator.  A big part of it is the character predates the present system of assigning comic characters copyrights and associated other media rights.

http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2009/8/13/dc-comics-to-lose-superman-movie-rights-in-2013.html


I thought Batman had similar issues...  but a quick google search didn't find anything.

Three was well directed and that is where my praise ends. The scriptwriter should have been taken out and shot. Sigourney Weaver should have been slapped for agreeing to do it. 3 takes a piss on everyone who enjoyed Aliens and says "Ha, we killed the other characters you cared for in the credits mother fuckers! The credits!"

OTOH, Fincher said in a recent interview that the reason Alien³ failed was because he didn't know enough to stop execs from meddling with the story, although it was poor to begin with. Right guy for the job, wrong time.

This thread went to a happy place with trilogytalk.

I too hate the title. It makes me think of Bruce Wayne waking up with a boner.

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman sounds weird, but she's pretty and she can act, so that could be good. Bale will do great things with Bane, especially by comparisson, since the previous Batman franchise made him a retard.

I thought Keaton was awful as Bruce Wayne/Batman. A 5-foot stand up comedian who acted borderline paranoid-schyzophrenic rather than brooding and obsessive. Actually I blame Tim Burton who likes Batman the same way Michael Bay likes Transformers. Ugh.

Huh?  He was a first-time film director doing the third movie in a blockbuster sf/horror franchise.  What the fuck did he expect?  Did he really think he would have 100% creative control?

It smacks of a blatant excuse making.  If you don't want to make an Alien movie, don't sign on to make an Alien movie.


Ugh.  While writing this some of the religion/Alien-as-Jesus nonsense is filtering back from my memory.

Looks like the last 30%.

Watching the "Director's Cut" complete with the badly remastered parts and only 80% finished CGI Alien does make the movie better (honestly, the additional shots with the Alien look really quite bad); not like incredibly so, but better. 

I know I've posted about Alien 3 before, but to recap:  The movie was originally intended to be something completely different (big epic movies).  The main idea was to not have Ripely be in it, and have the film center around Hicks, since they felt there wasn't much more they could do with her character.  Studio killed that idea because they wanted the film to be about Ripely.  The film went through a ton of script rewrites (which you can find on the internet and read if you want a different version of Alien 3, including one by William Gibson), development hell, and then they finally just kicked this film out the door so they would have something.

Read this part of the wiki if you want all the details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_3#Development

I really don't consider it a trilogy at this point, considering all that.

Burton had a decent take, I think.. Maybe I'm biased. I think he might be in my top 10 director list or something. I think if you're going to go one way with Batman though, he did it well. He wasn't complete cheese like the Schumacher films.

I think Keaton was OK too.. In fact, I don't think any of the Batman actors stood out as bad.. Keaton's kind of funny because you'd never suspect him to be Batman. The real shame is that Bill Murray was actually the frontrunner for the role.. That was the level of eccentricity they were shooting for. I suppose Keaton was chosen for being a little more toned down.

I'm not sure why but I keep reading this title as 'The Dark Knight Also Rises'.

I'm not really a big fan of the title, but I guess they probably felt pressured to keep The Dark Knight in there due to how successful TDK was.  Not that I think people would have really been confused if they had done another title with Batman in the name.

I suspect you'd get better recognition if the film was called "Batman : Something".

Producers are jerks etc.

Since we're bitching about the name now; I keep envisioning Batman baking, wearing a frilly apron while covered in flower.

"Rise of The Dark Knight", "Return of the Dark Knight" and "The Dark Knight Returns" have their own problems.

I'm still trying to imagine the Bill Murray version of Batman.

Wow. Reading that makes me even more pissed at the abortion that is Alien 3. A couple of those ideas are really cool, particularly the one that is all about the "cold war" and centers on Hicks and Bishop. Looks like the suits and a string of greedy directors who thought they knew better than some of these writers fucked things up. *sigh* What could have been...

Nolan has a track record where I'd honestly ask you how you could hold doubt in your heart about what he will do. That's like doubting James Cameron on a blockbuster being unable to gross a billon dollars on a single film. He knows what he is doing, and he's one of the few I trust to deliver on name alone. Film equivalent of Blizzard.

It's fun to speculate about possibilities, but doom-casting? AGAIN?

We've had our hearts broken so many times before.  :awesome_for_real:

Nolan is a fantastic director who works well with actors and moves things along fast enough that you can ignore some of the script problems. If he fixes the Batman fight scenes, he may just make the perfect nerd film.

What do you think would improve the fights? (I have my own thoughts on them....)

I thought the fight scenes were decent enough. Frankly there's not even that many of them, which I feel is a good thing.

Nolan's best Batman fight scene was he barely showed Batman at all in "Begins". (And then the worst was the shaky cam fight at the end of "Begins" on the train.)

In "DK", it showed too much of Batman and he just looked slow. Reality doesn't help - Bale is wearing a full body suit and can only move so fast - so either staging it so Batman fights from the shadows more or cutting more of the transition parts of the fight would make the action run a lot faster. It's one of the reasons I liked the Big Daddy fight in "Kick-Ass" better than "DK" despite both of them basically taking on a room of guys with guns: "Kick-Ass" cut the 'and BD walks a few steps forward to order to reach the next man' part and made things look a lot tighter as a result.

The best Batman like fight scenes are in both Punisher movies.

*By "both" I mean the last two. I don't remember much about the Dolph Lundgren one.

Let the crying begin.

EDIT: Yeah, it's a fuck off huge picture. Live with it or find your own.

Why crying? Looks decent to me, if that is Bane. I like the honest look in his eye; much better than the idiotic thug in the Schumaker movie.

Needs more tubes.

I refer you to the X-Men costumes, organic web shooters and some of the last few posts in The Hobbit thread.

There's always crying.

In this case, possibly not as much but there's no gimp mask and someone is no doubt tearing at their neckbeard right now.

I did all my crying when they announced that Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker.  Given how that turned out, I'll stave off more tears until I can see Bane in action.

Yeah, Pretty Much.


Edited to add :

Wait, apparently I wasn't crying about Heath at all.  Hmmm (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=7786.0).  God, I'm getting old.

I will shoot somebody if Bane breaks Batman's back or otherwise cripples him in the movie.

Next time Stray wanders back I'm going to have to remember to bust his balls about that thread.

[EDIT] Redundant

*anyone else think the lensflare in the pic looks curiously like a cat's eye?

You must have not read the last 8 posts or so?

That thread is  :awesome_for_real:

I have good faith in Tom Hardy to put out something interesting.

That thread is epic blackmail material.

I was the one that started it, too.  :heartbreak: I wonder if I could delete it like it never happened.

I believe that the correct internet response is to deny it ever happened, even when confronted with evidence that says otherwise.

I thought that only worked in politics :headscratch:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43296288

LMAO...I am very tempted to walk down there and see what all this entails.

Tell them your inspiration for being an extra is the guy that pulled out his wang in Teen Wolf.

Interesting tidbit:

The theatre I work at just got a trailer in for Dark Knight rises in digital, but it is key encrypted.  My guess is that it is going to be attached to all the prints of Harry Potter when it screens, so if you want to catch the trailer early on the big screen, try to sneak your way into a Potter showing.

http://www.thedarkknightrises.com/

Please don't let them fuck this movie up.

Considering the track record so far, with 2 for 2 pretty fucking awesome batman movies, I have high hopes.

I still wish they would do a Batman Movie with a non fucked up treatment of Freeze tho.

Teaser before Harry Potter was murky and uninteresting. Gave me no feel at all for the film. Might as well not have done it.

Agreed. I was just confused and wondering wtf was up with Gordon.  No real hook to draw me in.  I heard several, "What? The end? They killing batman?" comments when the last line was on screen, too.

At first I thought it was Liam Neeson in the hospital bed. I was like whut?

As cool as it is to have them filming scenes 4 blocks from where I work, and as awesome as the batmobile is in person, for the love of god has it fucked traffic up in this town well beyond the already shit traffic we had.

ugh... took me 40 minutes on the bus today where it normally takes anywhere from 15 to 25. However, seeing the buildings around CMU with a coating of fake snow is pretty interesting when its 82 out at 8 in the morning  :why_so_serious:

You should totally go have a Terminator Bale meltdown as close as you can to the film crew...

'Am I going to drive thru and ruin your set down in the middle of a scene???  Then why are ruining the traffic flow???  Ah da da dah like this in your background...what is it about you...what don't you understand...you got any fucking idea how distracting and how much of a pain the ass is it is to try and DRIVE while you are filming?  Give me a fucking answer!!!  What don't you get about it???'

I'm not the first to point it out, but the photos of Bane make it look like he's wearing a goatse mouthpiece.

Cannot be unseen.... :ye_gods:

Yeah, Bane is a bit wimpy in this.

Also, Catwoman

catwoman

Ahahaha.   :awesome_for_real:

...but where's Bane in that picture?

They continue to shoot the movie down in the part of town where I work. In fact, they are shooting in front of the building I formally worked at. My friend says they routinely take lunch in the 8th floor conference room that looks down on the filming. I am oddly indifferent to the whole thing much like when I lived in South Beach while they fucked up traffic to shoot Bad Boys II.

edit: phone fail... thanks for the spot check  :grin:

So, binary, were you drunk or typing on a phone?

DKR to be set eight years after The Dark Knight (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2011/nov/24/batman-dark-knight-rises)

That might count as a spoiler, though I'd already seen it. Kinda makes me think Nolan is going for his own version of Miller's DKR.

Good.

Wrap up the arc and resolve the story. No sequels. Preserve this unique vision for the rest of time.

The third movie is when they erect the bat-nipples.

After Rises, they will be rebooting the franchise with a new star and new writer/director.

:facepalm:

Hey. The fast turnaround on reboots gives me hope that we might see a decent Transformers movie get made someday.

And Lord of the Rings.   :why_so_serious:

Maybe if they get on that next Reboot fast enough, I will see a decent treatment of Mr Freeze as a batman villian before we actually invent cryogenics.

Maybe they'll do a reboot of the reboot of Starship Troopers.

I have a feeling that a Nolan-directed version of Starship Troopers might be one of the greatest things ever.

That's the spirit!

Yes please. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GokKUqLcvD8&feature=share)

Yep. Have to see this just to see Heinz field get blown the fuck up  :awesome_for_real:

What's with the 59th street bridge exterior? All the other Gotham stuff has been shot in Chicago?

Other than that, I'm all up in this piece.

THIS. Awesome trailer is awesome.

Seems LA and NYC... I don't see Chicago on the list of sites where it was shot...

Still not to keen on whatshernuts being cat woman.

Samesies. Nolan constantly miscasts women. Luckily, everything else about his movies are mostly spot on.

Only cat woman in my mind.

(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080727122003/batman/images/3/39/Catwomanbr.jpg)

Trailer was just lackluster in general. I do think the movie will be good but meh, that didn't whet the appetite.

For my money, Eartha Kitt was the best Catwoman.

I'll agree that if I had never heard of the franchise, this wouldn't be the most enticing trailer I have ever seen. I just assume that they are trying to keep as much under wraps as possible.

Have to agree with the "under wraps" part, this was more a teaser trailer than anything.

The 6-minute IMAX preview was leaked a few days ago.   Seemed interesting, but it's difficult to understand anything Bane's saying.

Yeah, he'd be more menacing if he didn't sound like my local drive-through order speaker.

Just re-watched the trailer twice.  Even knowing the lines it was still garbled. 

The Bane voice is still not as bad as Batman's in these movies. Although, I think Bats sounded much worse in Begins than Dark Knight.

Just wait until they start debating each other mid-fight hehe

Batman: HragharbelgarbargelGotham

Bane: BarghlebargelbarglSuffer

But really, I'm looking forward to this one.

The class war thing sounds like a high risk concept - and the trailer generally seemed meh - but hey Nolan Batman not going to argue.

I never got the voice complaints.

Bale indicated that he had a lot of problem in getting the Batman voice for "Begins" - he coughed a lot after takes - but by "Dark Knight" it was easy.

Put me in the SQUEE! crowd. TDK is one of my favorite movies ever. However I also think the Nolan/Bale Batman voice is stupid. It sounds like he is recovering from strep throat, not menacing.

this will be superb

I think they actually should have taken a page from Frank Miller's book on the voice - use some software to do some voice modulation to make it scarier rather than relying on scratchy-throat warbling. Batman shouldn't sound like Bruce Wayne with laryngitis - he should sound like a goddamn nightmare given form.

But even so, Dark Knight was still one of my all time favorite movies ever.

I find that ridicilous because batman spends half his time saving people anyway. Can you imagine getting mugged and then some giant black thing comes from the darkness beats up your mugger and goes "are you ok!?!?" in his best son of satan voice? I'd think you run into open traffic.

Thats, like, a whole theme in the batman series. Hero or Vigilante criminal.

Expressed in actions, he isn't the "dark knight" because he strep-throat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcackzHbBT0

 :facepalm:

New trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g8evyE9TuYk)

Potential spoilers possibly - although imo most interesting of the trailers so far.

The fixed Bane's voice, good stuff.

...I hope the movie won't sound like that, bane's voice sounds completely dubbed over the entire soundtrack. It's REALLY offputting.

I thought that trailer kicked ass.

Yeah, that looked really good.  Thank God they fixed Mumbles' voice.  Still more excited for The Avengers though. 

Time for another jaunt through Arkham City.

Trailer was awesome. I love how each of the three show things in different orders. I still don't know (and don't WANT to know!) for how much of the movie Batman is down for the count.

Don't really mind his voice. I realize it's off-putting to lore. But jeezus, there's so many different branches to the lore that even as a non-comic guy, about the only commonality I've seen over three decades of paying attention is that some rich kid who witnessed his parents death went all vigilante, with a costume and an honor code.


I should love that show, but the goddamned 70s-era laugh track drives me insane.

I'm kinda miffed by the whole Catwoman/Bane thing myself. The first two dark knight movies go through various pains to explain why Batman has better-than-bleeding-edge gear and literal discussion of batsuit ergonomics and then welp here's this chick who somehow hides her identity with an eye mask and fights on stiletto heels. Also bane's mask is hilarious.

I can kinda get why they had to go with someone like bane since the whole "super schemey badguy" thing was done perfectly by the Joker so you need someone who's a physical challenge to Batman (especially since he kicked the dog shit out of literally everyone who tried to go hand-to-hand with him last movie)...but Bane was never really one of my favorite Batman villains.

I always thought he was kind of silly.

He's silly in a lot of forms, but he has the chance of being interesting if used correctly, which it appears they may be pulling off in this movie.

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Bane_(New_Earth) -- Possible spoilers, of course.

His origin story wasn't bad, except for the fucking awful Mexican wrestler outfit. I liked the idea of a smart planner who was also a physical threat. His initial arc was also fairly good. After that, horrible story after horrible story, because they really couldn't figure out what the guy's motivation was after his first battle with Batman and defeat by Azrael-Batman. His only other good stories were in the Secret Six, where Gail Simone totally got what made him work as a character.

He's the rare case of a villain that the Dini-Timm Animated Series could not figure out a smart take on. (The Penguin is the other: I'm not sure there *is* a smart take on the Penguin.)

I think he literally kicked the dog shit out of some dogs, too.

I think comic writers struggle to conceive a character who is simultaneously smart, sane and amoral.

The obvious solution would be to have Batman fight some shade of himself.

There was a fairly silly character in Batman comics like that, a guy whose criminal parents were shot by a cop while he watched, and who vowed to make the world safe for criminality, training intensely for his mission, etc.

But I'm thinking Nolan's Bane is basically this character: Batman's equal physically, mentally and in determination.

Was that 'Manbat'?

Naw, a guy called "The Wraith".

Manbat is a scientist who self-experiments (don't they all?) with a serum and turns himself into a half-bat, half-man, can't really control himself once he's transformed.

Heh, I thought you were talking about Prometheus, who is pretty similar.

The problem with Bane is that a lot of writers use him just as someone who is very strong, not someone who is very good at planning.

He should work very well in Nolan's more grounded version of Batman, since it looks like he's running a mercenary outfit. As for Catwoman, we really haven't seen enough about her to see if she's a catburglar who avoids confrontation rather than the world-class fighter she's shown in a lot of comics.

I thought he was the new lead for Ra's al Ghoul's group since he's shown talking to Bruce unmasked and says Bruce has to be punished.

Could be. Though in the comics, Bane has the credit for being one of the few villians ever who were smart enough to figure out Batman's secret identity completely on their own.

I honestly thought that happened once he's kicked fuck outta Batman the first time and then unmasked him.

I get the feeling that'll happen, he'll get chucked into pit and then, well, you know, he rises.

Fucking new shitty TV spot spoils (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_o4eeDDN_zA)...

I'm not sure that trailer shows what you think it shows.

Exactly my assumption which seem supported by other quotes in trailers.

Then I look forward to being pleasantly surprised and wrong.

Bought my marathon ticket a couple days ago. It's going to be a long day of sitting in a theater but at least it won't be as long as when I did it with LotR, extended versions at that.

Yeah, it's only 3 movies.  I kind of feel for the people who did the Avengers Marathon, that was six (prob a tiny bit longer then the LotR marathon, not sure)

If it was all extended versions, LotR ran 11.4 hours, while Avengers went just over 12.5 (including the one just out).  Either one is a bit much even for a home viewing with my couch and $0.25/bag popcorn, to do it in theaters seems like more masochism than fandom (plus I can cut over half an hour off by skipping the credits).

--Dave

There's a hardcore vs casual cinema going debate in the brewing here.  :why_so_serious:

So word on the street is that there was a standing ovation at the end of a preview screening of this. Critics are falling over themselves to discuss how good it is - some saying it even puts the Avengers to shame. Also, no apparent embargo on reviews which is encouraging.

May avoid the internet for a couple of weeks for fear of spoilers.

Warner Bros. "accidentally" released 50 pages of production notes and stuff about the film.  So watch out for spoilers.

So far the trailers don't give away the movie like Promethus did.  Which is nice.

I don't understand clapping for a movie. It's not like the director can hear you, and the projector guy does not give a shit. This discussion feels like familiar ground though.

You're clapping because you feel like you didn't just get your money stolen from you for a crappy remake of a movie or tv show made 20 years ago.

There is also the possibility that if this was an advanced screening press-preview type dealy, the Director might actually be there.

It's an emotional response, nothing to understand.

It's just like when people yell at the TV during a sports game. Sense it makes = Zero. Does it happen regardless? Yup.

I should hope all of them would think so. The Avengers was a fun film in it's own right, and a decent superhero flick, but that is not the benchmark I would use to assess the Nolan Batman films, not even close. If critics were saying that it was a tossup between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises for film quality then it means that Nolan has fucked up hard by his own standards.

Quite.  No matter how much I enjoyed the recent Marvel movies (hint:Quite a Fucking Bit) the two Nolan Batman outings are simply not in the same category and shouldn't be taken together at all.

Amen. I've always said the Nolan Batman movies are crime noir movies which happen to have a guy in a Dracula cape and tights in them. The Avengers and all the Marvel movies are fantastic 4-color superhero movies. They aren't even the same genre. It's like trying to compare Road to Perdition (originally a comic book) with Avengers just because their original medium was the same. They can both be great movies without having to be compared. Nolan's work is much more "film" quality, while Avengers is "popcorn-movie" style.

It will be interesting to see what they do with Batman when they reboot in a few years. Will they stay on that path of crime noir or tilt back towards traditional superhero?

If they are smart (Warners has not shown that they are), they will make it with the eye towards pulling an Avengers - build him to fit in with the Justice League movie they should have been working on for years.

As I type, I'm watching Green Lantern.

They won't ever manage an Avengers type thing because they don't take their own IP Seriously.

I mean, I'm watching it again.  But what is this shit ?  Why is Reynolds even in this ??

I think he was hired to work on a DC film in which he'd be "meh" to dissuade Marvel from ever making a proper Deadpool movie with him.

Which reminds me, where the fuck is my Deadpool movie?

"Scene in which the Guardians explain the power of fear and how it destroys and corrupts"
Five second Pause.
"Then we must forge a yellow ring !"

Who the fuck wrote this ?  Where's Batman ?

Until DC pulls a Marvel and opens their own film studio, and gets back as many properties as possible, they are never gonna beat Marvel in the film market.

It's just that the JLA, except for Supes and Bats, is kind of weird.  I mean GL is defeated by the color yellow!  

Wonder Woman-Best chance of the bunch, but she needs a GOOD writer.
Martian Manhunter-LOL  "Hi, I have a set of powers that seem to have been dumped on me by the Origin Truck."
Flash-He's well known, but his power is kind of meh.
Aquaman-LOL again.  Nuff said.
Hawkman/woman-I smell fried chicken.

You get the idea.

As for Bats, I'd like to see a reboot where he's the World Greatest Detective and a movie that straddles the grim reality of the latest movies with the slightly off kilter Burton films.  No Ace the Bat-Hound please!  Oh and no more goddamn origins.  Amazonian tribesmen know it by now.

edit:  grammar

I think that people could go for an alternate reality batman, say a straight 1920's detective batman.

DC is owned by Warner Bros., and the rights to their characters are all owned in-house. The Warners film studios just don't know how to fucking exploit over 70 years worth of intellectual property.

Remember for a long time the situation was exactly reversed - DC had hits like Batman and Superman while Marvel couldn't get it's act together - Spider-Man was in development hell forever, Captain America was direct to video garbage, Roger Corman made a Fantastic Four movie!

So, "... Rises" appears to be a 2h 45min movie. There goes the midnight screening for me.

See "The Shadow", 1994

No. Don't see it.

Hey it was better than Dick Tracy!

What. Not even remotely.

There's a non-zero chance I'm completely confusing the two movies in my head. I remember they both have guys in overcoats.

I've seen both and dick tracy is only somewhat watchable. Still, both were made before comic movies were taken even remotely serious. I think some kind of alternate setting/timline batman is really the only way to go with an inevitable reboot since fans have seen all the possible "modern day batmans" Plus, more toys to make! it's win-win.

There really isn't going to be a reboot, per say... and Christopher Nolan is kind of moving into a structure to guide the creative path via producing.

What we will probably see is more of a traditional Batman, free from the baggage of post-Miller somewhat.

Well, he's producing Man of Steel but he said recently about Batman
That sounds to me like he won't have any hand in Batman after this, things may change of course if he changes his mind is given a Scrooge McDuck money vault.

I hope the next iteration is more like the dark, morally ambiguous Burton batman and less like the current idealized-cop-in-a-costume/Superman-with-gadgets version.  It'll still get my $11, of course.

Ah, I see he's shot that down. Too bad. :( I was quite into the idea of him taking on the creative director role for that stuff. If DC is smart, they will throw Scrooge McDuck money at him. Especially after fumbling the Joss Whedon/Wonder Woman stuff.

Why don't they just let the guys who write out all the JLU cartoons do it?

That's a good fucking question. Paul Dini could do some fucking awesome stuff with a Justice League script.

Write? Sure. Direct? No.

They really need to sow the Justice League seed somewhere and I think it all hinges on Man of Steel. Certainly why they got Nolan on it to try and ensure success. Reboot Batman in 2016, I'm okay with 4 years after DKR as long as it's for a Justice League movie. Get Flash and Wonder Woman done in the same time frame. I'm not sure that they really need a Green Lantern reboot or have time for another solo movie, stick John Stewart in there. Justice League in 2017.

DC, get your shit together. You're not going to get better timing than what you have right now.

Give Nolan all the money he wants. Just do it.

Nolan shouldn't be doing JL. Round peg, square hole.

Brad Bird is my vote.

I should clarify. I meant in a "let's get this shit done" manner.

Brad Bird is a fantastic choice for something like a JLA movie.

George Miller (Mad Max, Happy Feet) was attached to the JLA project that didn't take off.

I honestly can't think of a more terrible idea for the DC IP than a JLA movie.

Except for batman the last good DC film was superman 2; you can't write superman or batman into a team; and every hero other than the big 2 is just too fucking fruity for film.

A JLA movie is a stupid idea and Nolan wouldn't go near it because he is not stupid. DC, if they have any sense, will just ride Marvel's wave, and appreciate the money hats they can make from any half decent superhero movie without having to compromise tone by fitting them into the same world as each other.

In other news, Batman sounds p cool.

Unless they do what Marvel did with their properties they aren't ever going to have a JL movie.  I mean Nolan's Batman wouldn't fit into a JL movie, so that means rebooting that franchise.  I have no clue how Man of Steel is going to end up, but with the last Superfail movie.. I don't have much hope.  Green Lantern pretty much blew.  The Flash and Wonder Woman I think could make decent movies but WW has been in a development hell for years.  Then you have Aquaman... who I guess you could just toss into the movie like they did Hawkeye in Avengers.  Last Martian Manhunter, who tends to be more interesting in the DC cartoons then in any written comic I've ever seen.

I'd much rather see a legion of doom movie.

I'd die laughing if there's a Supreme Power movie before a JL movie  :why_so_serious:

Just got back from seeing this.  Its good.

Its only.... good. :|

I need a new word, something that means that something is good, you still enjoyed it, yet it didn't live up to expectations.  Something that isn't negative but shows that the level of awesome assumed was not quite reached.

Bad handjob?

In my circle of friends we call this the Titanic effect. Basically one of my friends heard for weeks how awesome that movie was from co-workers, family and friends and when he went to see it his general comment was "It was good but not as good as everyone made it out to be." I think if I was a Hollywood director I'd fear my movie getting hyped for exactly this reason.

Just finished seeing this as well; it was alright but not great. The Dark Knight was better. I'll post my full thoughts tomorrow, I've got work in 3 hours and need some sleep.

Also, there's nothing after the credits so save your time.

I'm really not sure how good it's going to be, but I know for a fact walking in that it won't be as good for me as I found The Dark Knight.

So my expectations are well managed.

I think they'd mostly fear a) getting overhyped when the movie was awful and b) not making a return on the money. cf: "John Carter". I think the chances of this film tanking are very low and, let's face it, as word of mouth goes "It's good and I enjoyed it" isn't exactly a terrible review, even if it's not as good a review as "It's the best film ever!".

You could try, "I was content with the film."

I was content with the film.

Yeah this. I don't expect anything in it to reach the heights of Dark Knight. As long as it isn't Batman & Robin bad, I'll probably be satisfied.

I think you would have to actively try and make the movie bad to get that low.  Troll the shit out of your audience.  Cast Nic Cage as the Joker or Orlando Bloom as the Riddler and have the screenplay done by Len Wiseman and the Farrelly brothers. 

Or Anne Hathaway as Catwoman!  :awesome_for_real:

(Ok, maybe she does a good job, haven't seen it yet.  Don't have very high hopes for that though.)

The reviews I've read say she's the best thing in it, actually. (Haven't seen it yet.)

She was fine, there wasn't enough of her actually.  She does well enough to make her feel like a characater that got more screen time than she did.

Alfred Pennyworth: Because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.

Indeed

I thought it was pretty great, actually. Interesting pastiche of three major comics stories, two of them expected, one less so. But a lot of original, smart elements as well.

It's now sounding like he told cops he was the Joker (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/us/colorado-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1).

Oddly enough, I was reading The Dark Knight Returns this morning before I heard the news. I had just finished the theater shooting scene and then read the news. Then, many hours later, a friend of mine posts this article  (http://washingtonexaminer.com/batman-movie-shooting-imitated-from-scene-in-1985-comic/article/2502701)on Facebook.

I wonder who was given that job. "Ok, intern, go to the comics shop and FIND A CONNECTION."

I deeply enjoy the irony of this sentence in this context.

Watched it last night; sadly not at an iMax as I wasn't able to go this morning with friends due to taking a trip down country.

I'm going to leave the spoilers for another post, but just wanted to note a few things.

Firstly, the movie is superb. I'm saying this in the same year that Joss Whedon knocked The Avengers out of the park - the level of spectacle, the sheer scale of TDKR is beyond breathtaking. I can't think of another movie on this level. Is it better than The Dark Knight? It's almost an unfair question, really. The Dark Knight was a cinematic sucker-punch. This character and his roster of allies and rogue's gallery who had been so dreadfully misrepresented up until Nolan's own Batman Begins was suddenly brought thrillingly into the real world - eschewing even the slight comic-book notes of Begins. This was Batman in HEAT. TDKR continues in this vein but allows itself to slip some elements of the fantastical back in and in that way, perhaps its impact is diminished in comparison to the previous movie. The other thing The Dark Knight has in its favour is time - time enough to be watched over several times and for it to implant itself further into your conscious - I watched it again on thursday night and was so absorbed all over again that I felt I'd just done something terribly unfair to the movie I was going to watch the next day. In the end though, it was alright.

So, if I'm being honest, TDKR is not as good as The Dark Knight. It suffers from being a little bloated (bloated in comparison to The Dark Knight?!) and it suffers from a lack of Heath Ledger's Joker. Tom Hardy (incidentally I went to school with him, haha) is brilliant as Bane, even stripped down to being essentially an ordinary man with conviction stronger than any drug. But he's not the elemental chaos and charisma that encapsulates Ledger's Joker. A huge hand should be given to the Ledger-like casting of Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (never actually mentioned as 'Catwoman'), tearing critical assumptions based on her less than stellar back catalogue apart and relishing her every moment on screen as an icon. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also fantastic to watch, it's easy to see why Nolan wanted to work with both him and Hardy again. His John Blake is essentially the audience's 'in' on the goings on, which is a hard task given the level of horror that descends upon his rookie shoulders.

I'm in danger of getting too far into this for now so I'll stop here and just say that The Dark Knight Rises might not reach The Dark Knight in terms of being a near masterpiece, but it is a phenomenal end to a trilogy, gives a wonderful sense of closure and thanks to a lot of heart is every bit the film I wished Inception could have been.

I agree with Mattemeo - I think "The Dark Knight Rises" is as good as (and suffers a lot of the same flaws as) "The Dark Knight". But it lacks the mesmerising villain that was the Joker.

"... Rises" talks too much, as well. It does have some good nods to the comics though and some nice revisions of existing Batman characters - Anne Hathaway is very good as Kyle while Bane's backstory is a good adaption.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, although there were some WTF moments like


The other confusing thing that all of us in the group were confused at was
.

Oh, and IMAX showing was blah.  Maybe I haven't seen any imax before but there were some scenes where it would go in and out of full imax with no transition at all and a few of us found it distracting.  Like to the point where the camera would be pointing at one character and the display would be full IMAX, then it would show another IMAX in normal screen size.

Much like Nolan's other Batman films, it "... Rises" suffers a lot from 'because-the-script-said-so' bits.

 

that's pretty much what it is. The ratio on IMAX screens are much different than standard movie screens, so you have to frame the shots for that still, but you can still have some fun on key action sequences and blow it up for a huge shot. Nolan does this better than anyone, really.

The documentries shot on IMAX only show on IMAX screens for the most part or are funked up when shown on standard movie screens. I'm also not sure exactly what you mean "full imax" and "another imax in normal screen size". unless that second IMAX was supposed to be "shot".

I was fortunate enough to catch it on Imax on opening night. Didn't notice that many issues with resolution or footage. It was a bit weird at the beginning but after that I was immersed.

Movie was very good, not sure it was good as the ones before. The movie seemed slightly predictable to me but maybe that's part and parcel with it being Batman.

Yeah it had some plotholes sure but overall it was a very good movie. Most importantly though the ending felt right and to me that was the most important part, how they wrapped it all up.

Plot holes are a drawback for a mystery or a caper movie, maybe even a psychodrama depending on how much you're supposed to be noticing the details.  Even in a normal action movie, you're expected to just ignore them and enjoy the ride.  In an action movie that starts from the premise that the protagonist is an actual superhero?  Shut the fuck up, neckbeard.

--Dave

Someone's channelling the geek butthurt of Harry Knowles here. It seems that a lot of nerds are slating the film because it didn't live up to what they wanted from the story or the portrayal of characters rather than what it was like in its own right - because Bane wasn't from South America or because characters weren't absolutely 110% faithful to the comics. Sucks to be you I guess.

My 2 pence: it isn't perfect and isn't as good as TDK but it's stunningly shot, well acted (Hathaway, Gordon-Levitt and Hardy are great), pretty well written and the story stays true and consistent to the mythology and world that was set up in the first two films. Yes I have some minor issues with the plot but none of them were significant enough to ruin the film for me.

tl;dr It was good & I enjoyed it. I am content.

A little geek butthurt seems appropriate for a movie based on a comic book. It's kind of silly to call a character Bane then make him nothing like Bane. In that case just make up a new guy.

 :facepalm:

I couldn't take Bane seriously because he looked wrong and sounded like a cross between Deckard Cain and Sean Connery. The first scene he was in I thought they had dubbed someone else's voice over this big buff dude. And while the Joker carried TDK, Bane basically ruined TDKR for me; the rest of the cast was all pretty good though there were a few scenes I thought were pretty stupid.

Way too many people putting TDK's joker on a pedastel. Great villain? sure. Greatest villain ever? Maybe top twenty...seriously.  I knew I wasn't going to like bane and the voice really did seem tacked on like I was fearing it would but he was just window dressing in this one.  This batman was not about the villains, almost not at all, they could have been cardboard cutouts as far as the story was concerned and the movie would have been just as good.  This really was a movie about batman, wayne and the supporting cast moreso than any villain.  I would say casting a strong villain like the joker would have moved the focus away from the resolution of the heroes.

I think Bane is the perfect choice for what they were doing. A bit different from the books, but the common perception that a lot of people have from the Cartoon/Game are a bit cartoonish anyway. That character has a lot more depth than just a big bruiser.

And Heath Ledger's turn at Joker is one of my favorite performances of all time, filled with a shit ton of subtleties which really sell the role rather than the large obvious ones.

In your opinion.

I have nothing bad to say about this movie. I was crying at the end. I feel everyone pulled it off. Only way I can describe the feeling is the what I should have felt after Mass Effect 3 if Bioware had pulled it off.

I could watch an entire movie of oldman playing commissioner gordan. God damn that man chews scenery.

I meant that the camera would be staring at Batman inside the capital/police building and the aspect ratio would be a normal movie screen size, and then it would cut to the outside riots and be full Imax aspect ratio for 10 seconds, then go back to looking at batman inside at normal movie screen size, and go back and forth over and over again. 

He's quite a bit like Bane. Considering that Bane has had no more than three well-characterized appearances in his entire history (his origin special, Knightfall, and Secret Six) and is significantly different in his Secret Six characterization than elsewhere, anyone who wants to claim that there's an essential "Bane" who must be got right is essentially confessing that they know almost shit and nothing about the character's comic-book history. Hell, his second major appearance after Knightfall, he was working with Ra's al-Ghul and trying to gain Talia al-Ghul's favor. Later on a plot line suggested he might be Bruce Wayne's half-brother; he's had stories where he's an antihero, etc.

The Dini cartoon version was, by their own admission, poorly done because they really couldn't do the character as he appeared in the comics. So he was just a chuckleheaded Mexican wrestler with a drug problem.

There's really only one essential thing about the character, in my view: that he's a physical match for the Batman and a careful plotter without major psychoses or obsessions beyond being the king of the hill. That's pretty much this character. Venom is an interesting element on the side but not an essential one, considering that he's had quite a few appearances where the drug was not a major part of his characterization--and Venom is in some ways simply an extension of the classic Legends of the Dark Knight arc where Batman gets addicted to it (before Bane was introduced).

It worked for Ledger's Joker, no reason to not do it again for Bane.  :why_so_serious:

Bane was always a mary sue character wasn't he? "stronger than batman and just as smart! omg!" kind of like doomsday for superman(I'm not an avid comic reader).  That's all I took away from the comics/cartoon, I had a discussion at work about this too. Summed up it was "it's just bane, who gives a fuck?" Hardy played a fine enough villain and while I argue about just -how- great Ledger was, his shadow was cast too much over this movie for any villain to follow. If only the voice wa not so tacked on in post...

The cartoons simplified him greatly.

He's incredibly smart, not just strong. He was raised in a prison after his revolution.... you know what, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bane_(comics)#Fictional_character_biography

But that's what I mean, I get that he was smart too but it always felt like he was generated JUST to counter batman, in the same artificial way that doomsday beat superman.  In comic books the good guy can't ever just LOSE, it has to be because the bad guy beats him in every way and is just(usually temporarily) superior. Bane in the comics is less believable than the penguin.

Fuck, read the comics, guys. I actually found the first Bane story quite good and believable. Guy who is smart, strong and kind of feral for reasons that are perfectly credible and kind of believable at a mythopoetic level (raised in a prison etc.) assembles a sort of evil Doc Savage squad of helpers, goes off to Gotham obsessively and says, "What do I need to do to take this guy down?"

Answer #1: watch him. So he does. He spent about eight months of comics time (8 or 9 issues) just watching. That's pretty interesting and more than most of Batman's enemies have done, given their impulse craziness.

Answer #2: exhaust him, make him run a gauntlet. Also totally plausible (it had been done before but as a quickie anniversary issue by Doug Moench). Exhaust him physically but also spiritually. Use his enemies to tire him. Make him realize that he can never win. Pretty well done.

Answer #3: having watched him, realize who he is. Wait until he's completely exhausted and break him. Again, pretty well set up.

It really was not Doomsday, who was just "Fucking stronger than Superman". It was a good set-up and an interesting character. They blew it with bringing Azrael in, since that was a very crude attempt to show the fans that they really didn't want a more "extreme" Batman who would waste his enemies. But up to that point, he was a smart character in a relatively decent story.

And the movie Bane is a reasonably good riff on that character, I think. There certainly isn't a "classic" Bane for alleged fans to get butthurt about and say that this one isn't like the original. That's just dumb.

I'm amazed that people complain that Nolan didn't make Bane like he is in the comics but ignore his revisions of Batman. Like a Batman who kills through omission ("Batman Begins") is a pretty big change, as is Batman's dependence on other characters throughout Nolan's trilogy.

And then there is the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy is great in "... Rises", BTW) or Ra's Al Ghul who are quite different in the films from their comics.

But then nerdrage knows little sense at times.

I don't get why Batman tries to outfight Bane without gadgets in this movie.
And the fight scenes were pretty mediocre to be honest, with or without the vehicular combat.
It was pretty OK movie, but I don't see what the hype is about.

The second time is because he HAS to do it without tricks, for himself and also for being the whole symbol thing.

Saw it last night and loved it, thought the ending was especially well done. My expectations were high, but I did not expect another 'The Dark Knight'. Heath Ledger's Joker is one of my favourite characters of all time (shocking!), there was no way Tom Hardy as Bane would ever come close. I just wish I hadn't had to strain to hear everything he said.

For a movie that was 2hr45min, it flew by and for me, that's a good indicator that I was really caught up in it all. Love a movie that can still give me goosebumps, which this did a couple of times in last section. I thought Anne Hathaway was great and I loved how she was Catwoman without actually being called Catwoman. The flipped up glasses looking like ears was a great touch.

Great movie, not the masterpiece of 'The Dark Knight', but it was never going to be. I think I did like it better than 'Batman Begins' though and Surlyboi (I think it was Surly) got it right when he said that 'Batman Begins' was about Bruce Wayne, 'The Dark Knight' was about Batman and this movie returned to be about Bruce.

I actually think of this movie as both an ending and an origin story for john blake.

JB


Bane vs Batman

I tried to find aspects of this film I didn't like and came up short. I guess you could say it's a bit too brooding overall, but that's about it. A great film, made all the better by an exceptional cast I'd say.

Finally saw this tonight and there was a continuity flaw that bugged me pretty severely. 



Agreed on the time thing.  I didn't even realize just how long it was until we got out of the theater and I looked at my watch.  Most long movies have at least one too-long and drawn-out part where I glance to see what time it is. Not a single time here.    As for Catwoman I thought that her costume was the best, most subtle character design in the whole of the series.  It was fantastic and only makes Bane's awful-looking mask even more disappointing to me.

I saw it with my mother-in-law yesterday and absolutely fucking loved it. No, it was not as good as Dark Knight, but I never expected it to be. Bane is just not a villain that is up to the same standard as the Joker. Even so, I actually really got into their portrayal of Bane, ESPECIALLY the voice. At times, it was a little hard to understand, but the pure malevolence of the voice and the way he said things like "I'm going to kill you but not before raping your soul through your eye sockets" with such a cheerful attitude was just great. Anne Hathaway as Catwoman immediately sold me when she was discovered by Wayne as the maid. The switch from doe-eyed innocent to Selina Kyle was pitch perfect and she never fell off that pace. Halfway through the movie, I had this notion that Leavitt should absolutely be the star of his own action movie. He's just so good - it's hard to imagine him as that little long-haired kid on 3rd Rock from the Sun.

You'll get your wish with Looper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kGFyVKmqA0), the trailer of which was before my showing of DKR.

Premium Rush, too. But I don't know about that one.

Yeah, that's the stuff. I didn't get that on my showing of DKR, I got Jack Reacher instead. BLECH.

Strange, that looks nothing like him.

They used makeup on Levitt to make him look more like Bruce Willis for the movie.

Yeah, I read that.  Just surprised how strange they made him look.

I think he really turned into a handsome bloke.

It's the eyebrows, I think. I can't stop staring at them.

THAT'S why I recognized him!  I loved him on 3rd Rock.  Now I like him even more.

He's one of my favorite actors now. 500 Days, 50/50, Inception. Great in all of them. The kid's gonna go places, I tell ya.

Agreed JGL seems to have almost limitless upside right now; he makes acting look effortless, just like Di Caprio really.

I've been a giant fan of his since Brick.  Which might be my favorite noir movie of all time.

Thanks for the reminder. I keep forgetting to watch Brick. AND it's on Netflix Streaming. Excellent.

Brick was fucking awesome.

I got Jack Reacher (yawn) and Premium Rush (yech).  Looper looks good, Premium Rush is...WTF?  A chase movie, but we'll put him on a bicycle?  Why?  Is there a big unserved market of bicycle messengers out there that need an action movie?

Liked DKR a lot.  The excessively clear Bane voice was a little annoying, needed some lampshade hanging ("Why does he sound like that?"  "Oh, that's the sound amplifying [technobabble] built into his mask because of [mumble-mumble]....").

--Dave

Well, that's what we get when they make his voice clearer. I actually did enjoy it better when it was difficult to hear him talk, back when the first action sequence was shown before MI4.

I wish I could hear a high quality version of both versions for comparison but this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZW5qyc2g6U) is the best I can find. I wonder if his original lines were recorded in a studio or just the redub.

I much prefer the cleaner, redubbed version.

I still had a lot of trouble understanding him as it was.  It greatly reduces the drama if all you hear is mumbling.

The original audio from the IMAX preview didn't bother me, as there was enough contextual clues about what was going on. I put it with shit like Brad Pitt's character in Snatch, or any other heavy accent.

But, I also can't find any reason to fault anyone for wanting a clearer version.

Sounds like a bad Shawn Connery impression, really is the low point of the movie.

Saw the movie yesterday.  I was somewhat disappointed.  Much of the interaction felt quite rushed and I failed to feel a connection.  I know there is a limited time, but we were in such a hurry to get from one place to another most of the story felt underdeveloped.

 

It was just ok.  Maybe see it on video.

That's just bringing it full circle, since Christian Bale's Batman voice is the low point of the first two!

Guess I'll go see this tomorrow.  I re-watched "Batman and Robin" last night.  I was really wrong about it; it's much worse than I remember.  The actors were fine and I liked the Batsuit, but you hardly see Bats!  The action is lame and it both feels rushed and tedious.

Now I'm afraid to re-watch Keaton's Batman movies.  That first movie is holy ground.

Edit:  Oops I mean "Batman Forever".

I think Tim Burton's Batman films still hold up.  Especially the first.  They went off the rails with Schumacher.

I like Batman Forever (except for the Robin stuff...).

Went and saw this tonight, was pretty much what I expect.  Which is to say "meh" and not very good.

Anne Hathaway did an amazing job as Selina Kyle though, proving my fear of bad casting completely wrong.  I'd watch her in that black dress any day.

Saw this yesterday.

Michael Caine had some great lines.  Great music in several spots.  The movie kept flowing, barely noticed the time passing, which says something.  However, the plot really wasn't what I was hoping for after the first two, and nearly everything felt telegraphed and slightly rushed.  Bane's voice also seemed to vary between incomprehensible and quite good depending on which shot it was (was this the re-records/overdubs?), which messed with the flow.


Edit:

Saw it earlier, enjoyed it more than I expected. More satisfying and a good ending to the trilogy.  But I still like The Avengers better.

Saw this myself last week. Thought it a bit of a mess. But an enjoyable enough one.

Tannhauser:

he came to Blake's orphanage 'as a billionaire orphan' public appearance.
then blake, who spent time 'hiding behind a mask of happy kid while being angry inside' realize that wayne has that same look about him. And to channel that anger, Wayne becomes Batman.

lmao. it sounds stupid but that's how i remembered blake's explanation in the movie.

I imagine there was more to it then just that.  That appearance may have been the seed that eventually allowed him to put two and two together after a much longer time.  It is quite easy to picture him putting the pieces together after, say, Batman AND Wayne both dissapear from society at the same time after Dent's death if he is already operating on the assumption that Wayne is a little off to begin with.

I assumed he knew because he would have known that Bruce Wayne had been part of the League of Shadows

Wrong character?  We are discussing the Blake (robin) character and his ability to pin Wayne down as Batman.  I think you are thinking of Bane.

You know, I was as disappointed with this movie as I was pleasantly surprised by the Avengers. DKR is not a bad movie but it is not up to the level of the first two films. Too rushed. Too packed. Not enough Batman. Plot 'twists' that were telegraphed way too much. Seriously, every twist in this movie was explicitly set up and you were practically led to it by a glowing arrow on your mini-map.

When Alfred was talking to Bruce about his yearly vacations, about a 1/4 of the way into the movie, while Bruce was away training, my wife turns to me and says, "Well... there's the end of the movie."

Exactly the kind of heavy handed foreshadowing I referred to.

Just saw this with the wife and enjoyed it.

But.

It wasn't very good, was it ?

I quite liked it until I rewatched 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight'.

It really wasn't that good.

It was the third best batman movie ever.  This still puts in the top five all time action movies.

Been bugging me all night.


Wait, What ?    :uhrr:

And there was a LOT of stuff like that in there.  It was a fucking Car Crash of Dark Knight Returns and Knightfall and it really, really, really hadn't been thought through.  Even the chronology was off.

Eh, I am still trying to figure out how he somehow managed to

Because he's Batman.

The problem is that pretty much all of Nolan's Batman films suffer from, "because the script says so". How does Gotham destroying itself achieve anything for the League of Shadows? How does the Joker pull off even half of what he manages?

Doesn't matter, because the script says that's what happens. Also, action scenes and chronology aren't his strong suit either.

Nah, that's wank.

Also, how the fuck did Bane eat?

His mask was also a GoGurt delivery system.

That builds some real fucking muscle.

(In all seriousness, Christ, but did that boy bulk up for that part.  Fucking Hell.)

Dude is pretty Daniel Day-Lewish when he takes on roles. He's quickly becoming a "must see his next thing" kinda person for me.

(http://shadoka.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/bronson.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronson_(film))

LOL my wife is wondering wtf I just randomly burst out laughing at

I was watching Tom Hardy in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" a week or two ago - he really is a chameleon for his roles.

Actually, looking at who Nolan casts - Oldman, Bale, Hardy - it seems to be a type of actor he favours.

Supporting actor nomination for Hardy?  I think so.  Him and Fassbender have my votes this year.  Really, I've loved Hardy since Nemesis (as shittastic as that movie was, his Shinzon was the best part of the film).   Those two right now are on every casting director's short list evidently.

edit: Oh and I just now saw this and tbh I thought the new Spiderman was slightly better.

(http://i.imgur.com/mvg9E.gif)

I've figured it out.  Bane was actually Auric Goldfinger.  I'd been thinking the entire movie how the hell he did that cheery and happy 'I'm going to pull out your guts with a spoon' over the top scariness and I realised that he wouldn't have been out of place AT ALL if he'd said 'No, Mr Wayne, I expect you to die!'

Hmmm.

I saw the movie this weekend.  While I cannot disagree with all the plot criticisms laid out above this post, I have to say that I thought the movie delivered powerfully.  I think the high quality acting and excellent pacing pulled it together for me.  I loved the Miranda twist.  I guess I was too absorbed to see it coming.

Excellent Pacing ?

Did you see a different version than I did ?

This is what happened to me but in the reverse since I watched the marathon at the theater. After Batman Begins I was like :drill:, after Dark Knight I was like  :drill: :drill:, then after Dark Knight Rises I was like... oh.

I'm not sure I'd call it excellent pacing, however the movie did keep flowing.  It never felt like it had moments of down-time.

I think that might have hurt it considering the length.

It flowed badly once you applied any thought to it whatsoever.  Time was treated with contempt.


Though I do like the idea of the Wayne Foundation Spine Repair Unit which is basically a large warehouse with about 200 ropes suspended from the roof.

See... you sir are coming at it all wrong. American movies, especially actions and romantic comedies, should never be thought about. Just get in the car, buckle up, keep you god damn arms and legs inside, and hang on. That's all.

I'd accept that fine (as I said, I enjoyed the movie) if it wasn't for the fact that the first two had been exceptional in that regard.  It gave me a fairly realistic and believable Batman.

This one was all kinds of mental.


Though Dear God, Anne looked good in that outfit on the bike.

There was a bike?

You may know it as the Anne Hathaway Bender Over Device.

She looked spectacular through the whole movie.

There's a reason for that.

Genetics?  Wealth?  A team of highly-trained specialists able to sculpt her 24/7 diet and exercise regimen?

Agreed.  I have never found her particularly attractive - until this movie.

As to my excellent pacing comment, I thought the movie just kept up the pace well.  I agree that the 5 months of Bruce in the pit prison was treated like it was 3 days but the whole Gotham occupation got that treatment for obvious running time reasons.

Yes.

And?

Hey, don't look at me.  I ain't complaining.

I am because the combination of the three means we'll have fewer like her.

Not that I don't understand that rarity makes a thing special, but increasing forms of her caliber by a bit can only improve our lives a bit.  (Wow, creepy AND sexist. Awesome!)

I'm just proud to say my generation's Batman trilogy and cartoons (the Fox ones from the early 90s) are the best.  While the third installment wasn't necessarily Nolan's finest, it's still damn good.


<insert Michael Keaton I'm Batman! Picture from SNL>

The complaining about anything accept the central villain plot I don't really get.

I enjoyed this as much as Dark Knight while in theatre, though the problems with the central plot crept in as soon as it ended.

Much better than the Avengers (which I liked)

Problems....

Awesome shit...

Bane really did work for me.  His brutal manner contrasted nicely with his posh accent.  Was really surprised how good a villain he was.  Bravo.


Edit:  Added spoiler thoughts.

My thoughts:

In the comics:

Anytime anyone on the screen fucks, you know not to trust them.

Oh, is THAT way I always feel so strange after watching porn.

I thought it was endorphins.

It's due more the reactions of the other people on the bus at the time.

Just got back from seeing this.  Loved every minute, and I enjoyed the story coming all back together and ending on a high note.  Also, all of the TV actor cameos were pretty nice.  Like, every five minutes, I was like "Oh, there's Christopher Judge!"  "Hey, it's Josh Stewart!" and "How the fuck did Reggie Lee get another cop role?!"


Fixed.   :grin:

My only legit problem with the movie:

Well, that's what you get for not wearing a seatbelt.

Found elsewhere...

Linky (http://www.cracked.com/article_20012_if-dark-knight-rises-was-10-times-shorter-more-honest.html)


 :drill:

Wow, that's excellent.

 :heart: :awesome_for_real: :why_so_serious: :why_so_serious: :heart:

Oh lord, that's brilliant. They're missing my pet peeve though...

What an excellent skewering of the movies.  Underscored a lot of things that niggled but were excused because "it's a movie!"

I hadn't even considered they should have called Levitt's character Terry McGinnis.. and now I'm pissed they didn't.  :awesome_for_real:

If we're into mocking this film...

Batman Dark Knight Rises - Call Me Maybe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ5l5ls0hP4)

I appreciate whoever they got to play Batman has nailed Bale's hangdog look.

Finally saw it tonight, gonna say that it was bad. Not "oh god, trilogy ruined" bad, but really not good. Worst of the 3.

I kinda had a laundry list of bitches but it's still spoiler-tag worthy here I guess so I'll just hold off.

This movie was a fucking nonsensical mess.

I think it had its good parts but it was not up to the level of the first two. I'd say out of recent Super Hero part 3's it is easily the best but when your competition is stuff like X-Men: The Last Stand and Spider-man 3  that is pretty shallow praise.

Given the movie, there's only 1 thing in there that might be considered a spoiler, since it's so fucking telegraphed what happens.

Go for it.

Alrighty then:


The things I liked:
-Wow, the first Catwoman portrayal that had an ounce of dignity. The body suit isn't skin-tight with the cleavage cut out, and she isn't an overly flirty sexpot and the whole goggles-into-catears thing was clever as hell.
-Gary Oldman is awesome as usual.
-The guy who played the young go-getter cop is good too.
-Non-sensical plot aside Bane was pretty cool when he was being Bane.

While I enjoyed the movie, I find it hard to disagree with this.

Worst of a series widely considered to be one of the best crime noir-style superhero movies ever? That's actually pretty good.

I think most of you have been overly critical of it, but most of your critiques have merit. It could have been a lot more coherent on reflection, but it succeeded in not taking me out of the movie for the entire almost 3 hours. So still a success.

I mean... we could have had bat nipple, emo dancing and Brett Ratner.

That was the part that was a bit unbelievable for me as well.  They could have at least done it some vaguely plausible way.


Joseph Gordon Levitt is basically always awesome.

Hey, I said it wasn't Matrix Revolutions bad. It was just not real good.

For what it's worth, I agree with you entirely.

It needed work.

I enjoyed it.

Very much agree.  Also by far the sexiest Catwoman IMO, precisely because she wasn't a teenage boy's caricature of "sexy".

Oh, be fair Sam :  she was still Anne Hathaway.

Which is a teenage boys caricature of 'sexy'.

Also, fight scenes where legs were impossibly splayed and bending over batbike.

There was a LITTLE caricature there.

I think my point is best illustrated by comparing Anne Hathaway's Catwoman to Halle Berry's Catwoman.  It's not like either of them are hard on the eyes, but stuff like this is just too stupid to be sexy:

(http://mimg.ugo.com/201006/48817/cuts/halle-berry-catwoman_480x270.jpg)

God, Halle Berry's Catwoman was so bad on so many levels. The worst part was that Berry was probably the BEST THING IN THE MOVIE. IN THAT IDIOTIC OUTFIT.

And she's still the most dignified version of Catwoman to hit the screen. Kinda gives you an idea of the quality we're working with here in terms of Batman movies.

Hey, Eartha Kitt was all dignity.

Ok, point taken.

Michelle Pfeiffer catwoman > Anne Hathaway catwoman.  Anne Hathaway is not even in the ballpark of Michelle Pfeiffer hotness.

Disagree.

Batman2 catwoman was slutty, hot but slutty.  Rises catwoman was sultry, biiiig difference once you become an adult.

Pfeiffer Catwoman was WAY WAY too campy. It was the best part of Batman Returns because other than 1 scene that had nothing to do with costumes in the middle of the movie, the rest of the movie was utter and complete shit.

Hathaway's Catwoman was superior in every single way unless you are measuring campiness.

Didn't her catwoman actually lick herself at one point ?  I was fairly sure that was when I stopped watching.

Then again, that movie played Catwoman as a brain damaged secretary that had fallen out a building, so maybe it scanned.

Yes, she did. And a Danny Devito Penguin that add raw fish by biting their heads off, bled and drooled black bile and ran for mayor of Gotham.

It really was fuckawful.

Wasn't that only the second one ?

Jeez.

Overall I didn't mind the burton films for what they were but I was also a teenage boy at the time.  Watching them again they just don't hold up but I believe that's because of me and not the films.

Or unless you are measuring by number of Michelle Pfeiffers. Which is probably the most important measurement.

The entire theater cheered in the first one when the Batwing paused in front of the moon.  Myself included.   :oh_i_see:

That's many times the reaction of any studio audience I've seen for the Nolan films (though I didn't see Begins in the theater).

I've got to agree. Anne Hathaway did a good job but her character was written sort of oddly. One of many elements of the movie that are jarring once I've had some time away from it to think about it. I just caught Returns on cable the other night and was struck by how much more interesting Michelle Pheiffer's take on the character was. Ignoring the supernatural elements her character was just flat out more interesting. Insane, predatory, and sexy as hell. Sure there was a bit of camp but it wasn't that bad with her character.

I don't know, the longer I've been away from TDKR the weaker it feels as a movie especially as a third movie for the Nolan Batman series. It's not a bad movie but it's just not worthy of being part of the Nolan Batman mythos. The writing in it just felt....lazy in so many ways.

I...


I...


(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1739972/web-images/hugeglare.gif)

Yeah, I didn't really get it either.

Batman Returns in general had lots of camp especially in everything involving the penguin but the camp with Catwoman was more restrained. *shrugs* I just found her take more interesting than Anne Hathaway's. I think I'm having trouble getting past the way her role was written and how her relationship with Batman/Bruce Wayne played out in TDKR. It feels like maybe there was a big section of script that disappeared.

1) She steals his mother's necklace, oh, and also kicks his cane out from under him. Also, gets his fingerprints which are used to ruin him financially later in the movie.
2) He shows up and helps her out, offers her the software program to clear her record. She betrays him and he gets his back broken for his trouble. Sure, she looks guilty while she watches but still...
3) He returns after healing and she helps him after apparently growing a conscience.
4) After his "Death" she shows up with him in a scene that clearly alludes to them being romantically involved despite them having had no onscreen time to develop feelings for each other.

 Basically, that whole plot line makes Batman seem like a naive chump, has her inconsistently characterized and has them get romantically involved in the final frame of the movie and the only reason for it seems to be "Hey, it's in the comics."

I thought there was enough onscreen sexual tension between her and Wayne to justify a bit of the old in-out later in the movie off screen. As for Wayne being a naive chump, well, he did fall into bed with Talia pretty quickly. And then there's the whole "I'll give up being Batman to have Maggie Gyllenhall" thing in The Dark Knight even though she clearly chose Harvey Dent. His track record with women in the movies and the comics has never been healthy.

As for how you see Pfeiffer's Catwoman as restrained... really? At one point in the movie, SHE LICKS HERSELF AND FUCKING MEOWS. While her performance was good, the whole part was campy as hell and would have fit right in alongside Adam West's Batman.

The Burton movies haven't aged well in the light of subsequent (and arguably) better superhero movies made by both Marvel and DC.

What I will give Burton though is that he was the first major film-maker that actually read the contemporary (late 80s) source comicbook material, took into account comic reader sentiment and at least had a healthy respect for the source material. From what I remember, I believe Burton stated that he was a comicbook reader and fan himself (the first major filmmaker to be so). Is that true?*

As for Hathaway's Selina Kyle (never called Catwoman at all in the movie), any number of actresses could have taken the role and done a competent job at it. The character is very blandly written. While I don't expect Pfeiffer's crazy cat lady shtick, at least Pfieffer was memorable to say the least. Selina Kyle is the CATWOMAN. Here she is just a kinda above average cat burglar with funky ear-peices. Ya, kind of missing the leather whips and claws and the bdsm imagery.

The same can be said for Talia Al-Ghul too. You establish her as an ultimate kick-asser in the movie that escaped the most hellish prison pit in existence but all she does later is stab batman in the ribs and get croaked in a truck mishap.

Wait, Burton had respect for the source? For one, casting Michael Keaton is pretty much taking a dump on the character right at the start. In Returns, Batman kills a henchman casually and gloats about it. I wasn't wild about the movies at the time but they're just terrible to watch now--Burton's trademark plot incoherence plus awful scripts really make them hard to endure. The only respect I see for the source material is in the visual designs.

So has just about every version of Catwoman.


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qlR5AX3DxcM/UAwtiNwWqkI/AAAAAAAADQ4/XydM2ml3bNk/s1600/leelicking.jpg)


To be honest. In comparison to every single version of catwoman on screen, on the little screen or animated. The Anne Hathaway catwomon is one of the most conservative, and understated characters presented. She was a stiff board in comparison.

I am pretty sure this is pretty much exactly the opposite of reality. IIRC Tim Burton was proud of the fact that he had never read a comic book.

I'm not sure what people were expecting with Catwoman.  This entire Batman trilogy has been a bit more "realistic" in its portrayal of the characters than previous versions.   I thought the way they included Catwoman seemed perfectly plausible for the world they created for this trilogy, a nutty catwoman running around meowing wouldn't have fit at all.

Oh, there was sexual chemistry for sure but that ending scene more or less implied that she was who Wayne settled down with which didn't fit her character and wasn't really supported on-screen.


No, she wouldn't have fit alongside Adam West's Batman at all. Also, keep in mind what I actually said:


Added bold for emphasis. I didn't say there wasn't any camp at all in her character, just that in comparison to the rest of the movie she was less campy. She had that one scene which is definitely an eye-roller but in general her performance was really good IMO. Like I said, I just watched it on cable a week or two ago so both performances are relatively fresh in my mind. Still, don't even get me started on the rest of the movie like the damned penguins with rockets on their backs...


I have to totally disagree here. Michael Keaton is the best thing about the Burton Batman movies. In particular his take on Bruce Wayne is excellent within that particular movie-verse. He played Bruce Wayne as a little crazy and damaged and I liked that.

Yea I didn't dislike Michael Keaton after I saw the movie. I did dislike the choice when it was first announced though. And I really didn't like Burton doing it, nor the result. I don't know why he keeps getting gigs. He needs to be a video game world designer or a IP world builder or something that focuses on the thing he loves doing (set pieces) instead of the everything-else he isn't good at.

I liked the Michael Keaton Batman movies, the 2nd one (with Danny Devito and Christopher Walken) even better than the 1st. Keaton had the good sense to jump off that steamer before that series rendition went totally adrift. I know I smack against a lot of folk, but the Jack Nicholson joker was wrong, and so much so, that he got top billing for it, and failed to do the role justice. He transformed the role into "Jack Nicholson" stock, instead of playing "the Joker". In TDK, Heath Ledger performance renders Nicholson's take as amateur hour.

AFA Catwoman in the 2nd Keaton flick, I found Pfeifer depiction rather unremarkable, plus or minus.

Man, I think "Returns" is a horrible mess of a film. It's a queasy mix of Burton's trademark Gothic whimsy and camp, with fecal characterization and an incoherent plotline to stank it up even more. Christopher Walken is kind of fun in it and I don't hate Pfeiffer's Catwoman except when she's compelled to deliver terrible lines.

Yeah, Burton's take on Batman was a goddamn joke. The first one was closer to the source material than any of the three that followed but it still had too much of Burton's stink on it. Keaton did a fantastic job with the role, and he was actually better as Bruce Wayne in Returns than the original but he had more of a conflicted role with the romance with Selina Kyle than Vicki Vale. Returns works great if you just take out all the parts with costumes in it - the scene with Kyle and Wayne dancing is one of the most perfect moments of cinematic genius I've ever seen. The rest of the movie is Burton taking a steaming dump on the entire Batman mythos. I can appreciate the first Batman movie for what it is, but it doesn't age well.

As for Selina Kyle "settling" for Bruce Wayne, I don't think she does. Her whole reason for doing what she does during the entire movie is to scrub her criminal past. She clearly wants to get a fresh start, to escape who and what she has been and will do anything to get that. She'll do anything to get it, even set up the Batman, who she didn't know was Wayne. When she finds out, she's remorseful. Being trapped in a Gotham that has gone 99% crazy, she starts to see what the "do what I want to please myself" thing has done to her reflected in the chaos of Gotham. That's why she risks herself to save Batman and Gotham. I think her character has a lot more nuance than you give her credit for.

The soundtrack for the first Batman movie is enormously important historically, in that it marks probably the biggest step to date in the mainstreaming of electronic music, at the time it came out.  :grin:

I blame you for making me watch this:

Prince - Batdance (http://vimeo.com/41100796)

That is more or less how I reacted to Keaton as well as Ledger when he was announced as the Joker. I was proven wrong both times.

 As for Burton, he reminds me of John Carpenter in that they were both good directors at one time but both of them have lost whatever it was that made them good. Say what you want about Burton but Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice, and Ed Wood are very good movies IMO. After that though he lost whatever it was he had at one point.



Eh, I enjoy the first one as a good example of a super hero movie from that time period. The 2nd one was where it began to go off the rails and I don't know if I blame that on Burton or Warner Bros as clearly things got much worse after he left. I totally agree that the best parts of Returns are with Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle as opposed to most of the super hero parts of the movie.


Yeah, I can see her character arc I suppose I just don't see why those two would end up together based purely on what happens in the movie. As a comics reader I can see it, but approaching it from what I see in the movie I just don't buy it. That's my objection to it.

TDK would be an entirely forgettable movie except for Ledger.

I thought Harvey Dent was awesome

Do what?  While I am not here to diminish Ledger's performance (on opening night, I was clamoring for an Oscar for him), Gordon and Joker are both played very well.

Also, prisoner's dilemma scene, Joker capture scene, and Harvey's downfall are all excellent.

Really all three previous Cat Women were more appealing and less campy than Pfeiffer.  And that show was all about camp.

Maybe a cat-ish woman.  I agree with the previously proffered sentiment that any average Hollywood actress could have delivered Nolan's Catwoman.  I extolled Hathaway's beauty in the movie because I had never prior thought her as striking.

Hathaway seemed positively subdued compared to prior Catwomen...  which worked both for and against her, from my point of view.

Granted, a real Selena Kyle would be subdued enough to make it into security zones and brazen enough to make it out No Matter What(tm).  But there's an element of bragging about her MO, which the most recent movie seemed to lack.  

Assertiveness?  Yes.  Bragging?  No.

(edit: grammerz)

They're good, but it's still not something I think I'd go out of my way to see again if not for the fact that they have a excellent villain.  It sort of makes the movie, in my opinion.

The Joker hides the numerous flaws of "TDK". "TDKR" just didn't quite have that edge or something that grabbed people's attention as much.

I don't think I'd agree. Dark Knight is a much better scripted movie than TDKR all around. Sure, Ledger's performance added a lot to the movie. Had the joker been performed to the same level as Nicholson did in '89 TDK wouldn't have been as good of a movie but I still think the script was good enough to stand on its own.

YMMV, but I couldn't help thinking of Haem's grief title when they handed the detonators to each ship and they didn't blow.   :drill:

So taking a character who was motivated by escape from the authorities, the mob and her current persona, and who respected Wayne/Batman but thought every other man she met in the film was worthless, and who said earlier to Batman 'hey fuck these guys lets elope'; you don't think it is reasonable that she would take up an opportunity to escape from the authorities, mob, and catwoman with Wayne/Batman, who incidentally had just demonstrated that he trusts her with the lives of half of Gotham, and also that he too would do anything to permanently escape his current life?

The ending didn't fit the traditional catwoman but it fit perfectly with nolan's

It fits versions of Catwoman just fine, if you're talking comics. There's one long-standing version where Catwoman and Batman get married and their daughter is the Huntress (the old Earth-2 continuity), a version of which has been restored recently.

In a word: No. It felt forced like a lot of things in the movie did.

I was somewhat disappointed that both ships didn't blow.

Yea I was pretty upset that they weren't on a timer, but instead had to be hand triggered (particularly because it felt cheap when they blew up both buildings with Rachel and Dent).

I think the movie is much, much darker when "ordinary people" begin killing each other en masse.  As a plot device it's signalling the Joker's fear campaign is slipping.

But, it does fly in the face of game theory.   :drill:

Totally agree. Finally watched this, and even with this thread preparing me, I found the movie pretty weak.

I assume we're passed the Spoilers stage given the age of the movie, but just in case:

*** SPOILERS MAY COME ***

Lots of my complaints have been mentioned already. What bothered me most though were:

• Very little gadgetry. Considering that stupid suit couldn't even stop a knife, there was little evidence it had any other redeeming values for how expensive it was.
• Batman's two fights with Bane. Here again: gadgets. Especially in the first one. Arkham Asylum Batman woulda kicked his ass with all those platforms and girders to swing around. But worse, he then goes back again for the exact same fight and gets pummelled the exact same way? Nice throwback to Dark Knight Returns with that prosthetic leg though.
• The MacGuffin. Yes, track the bomb and block the signal. But then how about blocking the transmitter signal too? Just put a second EM device where you assume it was (Bane) and be pre-adapted for the surprise reveal of Tate because she was there anyway.
  
• I kinda get the destruction of Bruce Wayne as a proxy for turning off the faucet of Batman toys. But since Bane made that connection, why not take all of Batman's toys too before breaking him.
• I never got why he went into seclusion for eight years while funding a fusion power core for five awaiting the somehow-arrival of scientist guy.
• Alfred: 8 years of living with a shut in and all in one week the complaints about his lifestyle, the truth about his girlfriend, and the dissolution of a promise made to Thomas Wayne all unravel?
• All the rest of the complaints here about squeaky-clean well-fed officers emerging from 3 months of tunnel living and Selena Kyle's kinda weak character.

My biggest complaint was Bane though. None of the single-minded charisma of Liam Neeson nor any of the strong acting of Ledger. They use the League of Shadows to make a connection that turns out not really to be there. But every scene with him, from the reveal of his gawdawful voice in the beginning to him trying to rally a crowd (note: they never actually show any crowds he's rallying after the stadium, which itself wasn't really a rally), were the weakest ones in the film. And I just don't get that mask. I liked the way they handled him much more in Knightfall.

I think I appreciate all the closure they tried to bring to this movie. They wanted Wayne to hit rock bottom alongside before finally giving up the life, and to ensure "Batman" lived on. I just don't know that Blake can carry it if they decide to continue this version of the franchise.

Sorry for necro. But somehow nobody seemed to have this complaint and its by far my biggest after seeing the movie at long last.

The biggest flaw this movie had for me, besides the entire cops underground bullshit which led to the horrible large brawl fight was that this movie was in NYC not Gotham. That just was not Gotham in any way shape or form. That was really fucking immersion breaking. The whole US government and special forces thing was immersion breaking enough for me the first time around but I was watching it and the reason I found it so jarring is this movie takes place in New York and makes no attempt to disguise it as anything else. I can ignore horrible plot, I'm an American and I've been trained from an early age but the movie should at least seem like its in the right place surely?

The whole damn movie was too bright, and normal, the buildings weren't tall enough or imposing enough or gothic enough or dark enough. Also the fights did suck ass because no plan no gadgets nothing if the fights didn't suck so badly maybe I wouldn't have noticed how mediocre the movie was for a couple more days.

Ummm, the movie was filmed in Pittsburgh.

Except the shots that were straight up of Manhattan? Like Freedom Tower and all which as far as I could tell at the time looked exactly like the Manhattan I was in a month ago? The whole end of the movie took place in New York for me. Maybe I wasn't feeling like that in the early going I can't say but once it started it was pretty ruinous to my enjoyment.

Isn't Gotham supposed to be New York anyway?  I mean not explicitly, but I've always assumed that it was basically a fictional New York within the Batman universe.

I always thought that Metropolis was the nice version of NYC and Gotham was supposed to be the seedy version of NYC.

I always figured Metropolis was New York and Gotham was Chicago, myself. Its not hard to see that as Batman was conceived when the Mob was still doing its Chicago thing.

Well, my assumption was based on the fact that Gotham is nickname for New York City.

Its basically New York but it certainly usually has a lot of changes, its darker, its extra gothic and the buildings are tall and imposing. The landmarks are different, the whole monorail that was used in the first couple of movies. Wayne Tower being the dominant downtown landmark stuff like that. I was starting to feel crazy but I google'd around and there are other people who noticed:


This was how I felt. It was obviously Manhattan but we kept calling it Gotham but it kept looking exactly like Manhattan except for when they would randomly add 20 bridges or put an ocean somewhere or remove Queens. I've never even lived there though I've been many times and it was just too fucking jarring for me. Though the fight scenes being awful was a bigger problem I'll concede.

Text is from here which was one of several nerdrage write ups I found, the whole thing is obviously not really worth reading.
http://endsandleavings.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/the-dark-knight-rises-i-would-like-more-attention-to-detail-please/

Yea I always assumed Gotham was NYC too, though I could totally see why people could assume Chicago.It's kind of a hodgepodge of many older cities, though far too big to be a Phillie or Pittsburgh, and none of the grandeur of DC nor the young adult friendly traditionalism of Boston.

But all that aside, The Dark Night clearly established it was NYC with this dialog:


Palisades are right across the Hudson due south of the Tappan Zee.

Bane's Voice is Just Terrible.

 :uhrr:

I didn't mind the voice so much as not being able to see his mouth.

Not really sure why they felt the need to carry over the face mask.

Without the face mask it could have been anyone.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Gew9NN8RbvE/TFP46qCFH7I/AAAAAAAACMU/blqC8bBwK9E/s400/Tor+Johnson-Plan+9+From+Outer+Space.jpg)

This. Felt like I was watching a bad anime dub.

The Bane voice gave rise to Bane Plays (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOXCdSMaNeE), so I am okay with it.

Yeah, that's the funniest thing you've ever put on your FB page, I almost wet myself.

Which is why the voice in the actual film fucks me off so much.  It's hilariously cheery.

Hello There, I will bake you a lemon pie and then I'll Kill You !  Herpy Derpy Day !  etc.

Bad voice is bad.

The Matrix is like that for me. Imaginary city inside a computer! No, I work in that building over there.

I think you missed the point of The Matrix.

 :why_so_serious:

 :oh_i_see:

That's what I liked about it.

I guess so, I mean, I hate it when a film has a character in civilian clothes with no costume gimmick. Because it means there is literally no way to tell characters apart or to make an association between a character and how they look.

Necro!

Finally got around to watching this. I liked a lot of it, but it was definitely the worst of the 3 Nolan Batman films. Anne Hathaway and JGL were the highlights for sure. How can a 2:45 movie still seem like it is rushed? Really felt like it skipped around all over the place and was hard to follow exactly. I basically gave up and just waited for Batman to beat the hell out of some people.

Also glad to see that most of you feel at least a glimmer of the supernova of hate I have for Tim Burton. God what an overrated hack. I sort of liked his first Batman at the time, but I was young and dumb and had never seen a decent superhero movie (well, I guess Reeves' Superman flicks were ok), so I thought it was much better than it actually was. It is downright PAINFUL to watch now. And that was the best of the entire run! Thankfully I have forgotten most of the rest of them almost completely.

Tim Burton is not overrated as long as he sticks to the things he should. Unfortunately he does not stick to those things.

Ed Wood is, and always will be, one of the best movies ever made.