The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - Part 143

[Anno_Domini]

^ This is true.

And when it comes to Joker not being mentioned, it is easy to say they didn't want to acknowledge "Dent's killer" as being the one to have taken down Joker. Probably why Blake didn't mention Joker's name when he was talking to Dent as they probably covered that up as well on who took down Joker. Easy way of thinking it with Nolan not wanting to have mentioned Joker at all.

[georgec]

Had Ledger not died, I would have expected Nolan to take the third film in the direction of "Dark Victory", the sequel to "The Long Halloween", which is more or less an all-out war between the freaks and the organized criminals.

But I still think Bane and the LoS would have come to Gotham, and that would have been the primary storyline anyway. Only that he might have recruited Joker and some other criminals to maintain order, or create some kind of new anarchist government.

[Tequilla]

Epicism (i suppose the word doesnt exist...) cannot be measured , but in Rises there's an approach to the filmmaking that is absolutely colossal. Its makes me grin , because its such a fascinating aspect of these movies that its very opposite to the trends of todays big american movies. But at the same time , the story is very focused and contained in one character. Its a very introspective narrative , that is surrounded by an enormous space of action. That alone puts Rises in a very special place . In this aspect , the other two previous movies don't hold a candle to it.

[shauner111]

Originally Posted by georgec

Had Ledger not died, I would have expected Nolan to take the third film in the direction of "Dark Victory", the sequel to "The Long Halloween", which is more or less an all-out war between the freaks and the organized criminals.

But I still think Bane and the LoS would have come to Gotham, and that would have been the primary storyline anyway. Only that he might have recruited Joker and some other criminals to maintain order, or create some kind of new anarchist government.

Good point. If Nolan was still directing (let's face it, if Heath had lived and was guaranteed to return, Nolan might have passed on the 3rd movie. Leaving Bale, etc to work with a different director/villains) i think Bane and Catwoman would still be the center of the plot.

But who knows if he would have set it 8 years later or just a year. Dark Victory could have been an option. "Arkham Asylum" as well. A bit of "Prey" thrown in for good measure. It sounds like the way to go with Joker in a minor role. I doubt there would have been some Joker/Bats fight again, just a small confrontation. And maybe a setup for Dick Grayson for the next director.

There's a great big chance that Nolan would pass on number 3 to avoid repetition with the Joker (had Heath lived) and a new director would have chosen someone other than Bane and went more comic booky.

[batbax]

You really think Nolan would've passed up on a third film if ledger was alive?!?! Why are you coming to this conclusion? If anything I think it was the opposite.

[Anno_Domini]

Yah, just because Ledger hadn't died, I don't think Nolan would walk out on a third film because he wouldn't want to use Joker again. I mean, he did use Crane in all three films afterall.

[shauner111]

Because Nolan wasn't into making a third movie until they were able to create a story that was 8 years later with Bruce older and concluding his story. Im saying there's a chance that he would have wanted to use Joker in a significant supporting role (or lead) and would pass on it because he would fear repetition.

If Ledger was alive, the 8 year Dark Knight Returns may or may not have happened. And that was key to Nolan returning one final time. But no matter what, Bale was obligated to do a third and Ledger was obligated (so i hear) to do another.

We just dont know. Im speculating that's all.

Goyer may not have brought Bane to Nolan either if it wasn't for their mentality of "no Heath = no joker".

[Schrute]

Damn, this movie gets worse after each viewing. Feel like I had to try and convince myself that I thought it was a very good movie but just can't anymore.

[RustyCage]

Isn't Nolan on the record saying he DID want to use Joker again, but no longer could? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

[BlueLightning]

The only thing I remember is that in the first draft of the storyline would have the Joker returning in the sequel for his trial and scarring Harvey Dent in the process. That evolved into The Dark Knight in its entirety

[Kane52630]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

Isn't Nolan on the record saying he DID want to use Joker again, but no longer could? Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

It was Aaron Eckhart who said it on Leno.

[BatLobsterRises]

I think all Nolan said was that Heath created a character that "you'd want to see 10 more movies about", but that's a bit of hyperbole so it's tough to say exactly where he stood on it. Goyer said something to the same effect, that it would have been a "no brainer" if Heath had lived.

I still don't believe Joker was intended to be the main villain in a sequel after TDK became what it was. A memorable cameo would have been the best option.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by shauner111

Because Nolan wasn't into making a third movie until they were able to create a story that was 8 years later with Bruce older and concluding his story. Im saying there's a chance that he would have wanted to use Joker in a significant supporting role (or lead) and would pass on it because he would fear repetition.

If Ledger was alive, the 8 year Dark Knight Returns may or may not have happened. And that was key to Nolan returning one final time. But no matter what, Bale was obligated to do a third and Ledger was obligated (so i hear) to do another.

We just dont know. Im speculating that's all.

Goyer may not have brought Bane to Nolan either if it wasn't for their mentality of "no Heath = no joker".

I think you could just be over thinking this. Using Joker again would probably be something Nolan would want to do and could still go the route of the 8 year gap and what not. Bane being the mutant leader and Joker being used could've been such a more epic version of TDKReturns but in Nolan's universe.

Originally Posted by Schrute

Damn, this movie gets worse after each viewing. Feel like I had to try and convince myself that I thought it was a very good movie but just can't anymore.

That sucks for you.

[ThePhantasm]

I seem to remember originally TDK was going to be two films, with Joker on trial in the second film and scarring Harvey Dent. That all got condensed down to one movie.

[Tequilla]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I seem to remember originally TDK was going to be two films, with Joker on trial in the second film and scarring Harvey Dent. That all got condensed down to one movie.

I think that was a very loose idea of Goyer. I never read anything from Nolan , the moment TDK got in the writing process that validated that option . (which to me is perfectly normal , considering Dent's downfall and demise is essential to TDK).

It always sounded like typical studio outline bait.

[Schrute]

[QUOTE=That sucks for you.[/QUOTE]

I know, maybe in time I will view it differently hopefully because Nolan is one of my favorite directors and this is one of my favorite trilogys.

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by georgec

Had Ledger not died, I would have expected Nolan to take the third film in the direction of "Dark Victory", the sequel to "The Long Halloween", which is more or less an all-out war between the freaks and the organized criminals.

That would have rooocckked.

But I still think Bane and the LoS would have come to Gotham, and that would have been the primary storyline anyway. Only that he might have recruited Joker and some other criminals to maintain order, or create some kind of new anarchist government.

...Anarchist... government..? haha

Anarchy = No rulers

Goverment = Rulers

[georgec]

Originally Posted by RustyCage

That would have rooocckked.



...Anarchist... government..? haha

Anarchy = No rulers

Goverment = Rulers

Well, anarchy implies a lack of enforced law, but the presence of Bane would nevertheless impose a form of military rule on Gotham.

I should have said "anarchy under military occupation".

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by georgec

Well, anarchy implies a lack of enforced law, but the presence of Bane would nevertheless impose a form of military rule on Gotham.

I should have said "anarchy under military occupation".

Once you establish any form of 'rule', be it good or bad, whether or not it has written laws or is based on the whims of the ruler, it's no longer anarchy.

Bane wasn't described or necessarily portrayed as an anarchist. He cons the people into helping him fight the police by telling them to take their city back, but really he just wants to destroy it all and make Bruce suffer.

And even if he were sincere about the people taking Gotham back, he'd still just be imposing a mob rule, which is, again, not anarchy.

[Anno_Domini]

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Anno_Domini]

Part one of a three-part article on The Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole, but more or less specifically about The Dark Knight Rises that questions if Nolan achieved something with the film:

http://voicesfromkrypton.net/the-dar...-right-part-1/

Just putting up some of the stuff I liked about part one

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne says that he must become a “symbol” so that he can be “incorruptible.” The mythos of Batman is achieved well through even the smallest details such as a room full of henchmen saying things like “the things they say about him…can he really fly?” and “I hear he can disappear.” The fear Batman instills is palpable on screen and when he makes his first appearance, the feeling is perfect. Batman strikes with speed and stealth, making men wail in horror and fire in all directions in a desperate attempt to protect themselves. The camera is shaky and we can only see glimpses of the horned cowl, the flowing cape, or the descending shadows. This is what Batman is supposed to be.

I'm pleased some understand the shaky cam idea from BB.

By the end of the [third] film, we see a Batman that has found a new inspiration and new strength to carry out his mission. Nolan described it in several scenes of DKR as “regaining his fear of dying” or “finding a new reason to live.” This reason is implied to be the simple fact that “Gotham needs him,” which leads the story to the end result of an all-out war waged with all the weapons he can get his hands on. Bale’s character even says he wants an “all-out assault on Bane” and that Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) should “prepare for war.” Batman becomes the general of a Gothamite army, which takes away from his only-come-out-at-night persona. The film makes Batman much more man than mystery.

Earlier in the article, the question asked why the title of the film is called The Dark Knight Rises, but this paragraph should have answered that question. Batman isn't a mystery anymore as he was in BB and TDK and he's fighting in daylight. He had risen to a whole level of mythology where he's a hero as clear as day(no pun intended).

[JackWhite]

That's a great article, Anno^

One of the many things I love about how Nolan tackled this trilogy, is how we see three different periods of Batman/Bruce. I never understood how people complained that TDK wasn't BB 2.0, or how TDKR wasn't TDK 2.0. Each movie stands on its own as one part of a greater whole.

[BatLobsterRises]

That was one of the things I loved about the Star Wars trilogy too. You see a real evolution of Luke from movie to movie, and this was in part accomplished just through the passage of time.

[Just_Human]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

Part one of a three-part article on The Dark Knight Trilogy as a whole, but more or less specifically about The Dark Knight Rises that questions if Nolan achieved something with the film:

http://voicesfromkrypton.net/the-dar...-right-part-1/

Just putting up some of the stuff I liked about part one



I'm pleased some understand the shaky cam idea from BB.



Earlier in the article, the question asked why the title of the film is called The Dark Knight Rises, but this paragraph should have answered that question. Batman isn't a mystery anymore as he was in BB and TDK and he's fighting in daylight. He had risen to a whole level of mythology where he's a hero as clear as day(no pun intended).

And the sky is blue

[RustyCage]

Originally Posted by Anno_Domini

I'm pleased some understand the shaky cam idea from BB.

I would've liked to see it return.