The Dark Knight Rises

[Ingmar]

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

[Ironwood]

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

 
 

[WindupAtheist]

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.

 

[HaemishM]

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

[Ironwood]

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.

 

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 !!!

[Johny Cee]

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.

[Rasix]

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.

 

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 !!!

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

Someone must have said "George Lucas" 3 times.

[stray]

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.

[HaemishM]

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.

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?

[Johny Cee]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Johny Cee]

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.

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?

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. 

[Ironwood]

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.

 

[Nevermore]

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. 

[Fordel]

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.

 

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!"

[UnSub]

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.

[Ingmar]

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

 
 

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

[K9]

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.

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

[Teleku]

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?

[Velorath]

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.  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.

[Mrbloodworth]

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)

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

[HaemishM]

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.

[eldaec]

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.

[Minvaren]

Hush could have the makings for a Nolan Batman villain.

[Johny Cee]

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.

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. 

[Trippy]

Time Warner owns Warner Bros which owns DC Entertainment.

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

[murdoc]

Besides, there has never been a good trilogy in the history of film.

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

[Johny Cee]

Time Warner owns Warner Bros which owns DC Entertainment.

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

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.

[Riggswolfe]

Alien

   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.

Three was great.

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!"

[stu]

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.

[Slyfeind]

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.

[Johny Cee]

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.

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.

[Morfiend]

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.

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

Looks like the last 30%.

[Mortriden]

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.

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. 

[Teleku]

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.

[stray]

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.

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.