The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4! - - Part 11

[TDK Joker]

dont know if this has been answered..ive been out of the loop. but is the prologue going to be playing before ghost protocol for a while or is it only this week? thanks.

As far as I know, it's playing before every screening of Mission Impossible, as long as the IMAX theatres have 70mm projectors.

 

[StarLord]

Didn't they use ice in the opening credits of Batman & Robin?

As long as TDKR doesn't open with Batman sliding down a dinosaur, we'll be fine!

 

[dialimenos]

also, since im here. i used to be a big fan of michael bay, and still am somewhat. but he seems to be going overboard with the camera work during action scenes. i loved the rock and i still believe that movie really changed the standard and style of action movies, but now i dont like the excessive shaking of the camera. especially in transformers, with all the moving parts and debris flying around it makes it difficult to focus on what im supposed to be watching...maybe im getting old.lol. jj abrams (hands down, the most over rated director right now) does the same thing. i dont mind it if it used for certain scenes...but allllll the time.... makes it repetitive.

 

[dialimenos]

anyone go to the scotiabank theatre in toronto?

 

[Doc Holliday]

As long as TDKR doesn't open with Batman sliding down a dinosaur, we'll be fine!

Personally, I'm all for a little sky surfing.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Maybe it fits with the winter aspect of Gotham in this film... well, the July is winter aspect. Wait, maybe that's Bane's weapon, a weather machine!

 

[Bads316]

People have mentioned how unsettling the mercs sacrifice on the plane is - what I find more disturbing is thinking about the 'volunteer' in the body-bag.

 

[Marvin]

I get what you're saying, but I don't feel like you're understanding me, so it still feels like we're at cross purposes here. Plus which, you know, thank you for: (1) taking "dream projects" and running with it and completely ignoring/dismissing the point I was making with bringing up Inception; and (2) the unprovoked jab at my being ill-informed when I had provided an original caveat of "to my understanding." As ever, that is extraordinarily conducive toward productive conversation.

Sorry for any confusion, it was late.

Yes I twisted you're mention of dream projects to my own means. Inception was a passion project and no one should take anything away from that(regardless of the wild budget). Secondly I get that you acknowledged that you were ill informed. But that didn't stop you from making your assertion so I didn't let it stop me from making mine. The best "discussors" if you will tend to know a fair deal about both sides of the story let alone argument. It's very easy(and popular) to write someone like Bay off as a soulless *****e that shoots runway models and action scenes for money. Pardon me if I'm one of the few that took the time to research and present some contrary evidence. But I digress.

I stand by my original assertion: Nolan is first and foremost a storyteller who uses film as the medium through which he tells the story, so even his technical mastery -- his dedication to IMAX, for instance -- is filtered through that lens. His focus (or vision, if you will) is inextricably tied to the script; that is what I mean when I say that I believe Nolan would never make a film without a script he believes in. That his films accomplish whatever accolades people throw at him -- that he is thought-provoking, entertaining, audacious, what-the-hell-ever -- I think it's important to keep in mind the fact that Nolan approaches film-making from a very clear perspective: how will this serve the story I'm trying to tell? And people respond to that: at the core of a good film, there is a good story.

I tend to agree with this but only to a point. Nolan get's huge pass where others don't it seems.

One has to be willfully dense to ignore the amount of fluff in a modern Nolan picture. If he truly truly was as you say, putting story first at every juncture the films would almost certainly have no action along with a lot of other stuff.I'd go so far as to say they would be a fraction of the running time as well. I may be being a little obtuse here but one can't deny the little things. How much of Nolans chase scenes for example are truly necessary for story? In some cases are they even needed at all(see begins). Let's be honest here Nolan works for a big studio and what's more he works for the studio's audience. Even he panders. He's just smart about it.

A car flying on roof tops? Why?
Now I 'm hearing things about football stadiums...

That is not Michael Bay's approach. I think if Nolan can be called a storyteller, then Bay can probably be called an entertainer, because his films are enjoyable on a level that doesn't necessarily have much to do with the story at all. Film-making is a complicated process, and the primary brunt of his focus is clearly on aspects that are not necessarily the script -- which, yes, means that he's really good at directing action scenes, but there's the feeling that these big spectacular set pieces are for their own sake and not intended to necessarily serve the story in an integral way. And no, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, that it makes him a bad director, that it's ~insulting~ to mention Bay and Nolan in the same sentence -- I'm saying that they're very, very different directors. Both being able to deliver spectacle on the big screen doesn't make them similar, if they arrive at that result from entirely different points of departure.

I see what you're saying with this. And I mostly agree. However what people never fail to grasp is intent. Bay is that way on such projects because the productions calls for it. For example if Bay were to make a sequel to "Something about Marry" next year. He would fall into these decision tropes yet again. "Gags above story," if you will. And the comparisons to Nolan would continue even then.

Bay isn't failing at something he isn't trying to do, he's succeeding at something he is(note the returns). Notice how no one ever makes lack of story telling assertions to the likes of Todd Phillips? The TF series and the Bad Boy series are Action Comedies first. Why can't we receive them as such? That's not to say Bay hasn't failed at more traditional dramas(bruckeimer aside), a lot of the criticism is ill conceived on the premise I outlined. But again I digress. Would Bay turn in a sequel to Shawshank into a girls behind bars action comedy? Well he(alone) did similar with the prestigious Transformers property so who's to say right?

(And you know what, all right, full disclosure: I'm not in the demographic that a Bay film targets. I get that. I think he's probably a misogynistic ******* but I have no qualms against his works, because it's not a crime to make films that don't cater to my tastes.)

I like you're last line. More people should adapt that mindset.
However this misogynistic misconception is more of this anti bay bs that quite frankly get's too much mention around these parts. If you'll allow me.

Not only are the "heroines" in bay films empowered (even in bad boys one). But they are often times central. Yes he does pander here and there I'll fault him on that. If anything inception is more against women then any bay movie in premise alone. Then we have the oh so glorious James bond series everyone(including Nolan) champions. Which is famous for half naked women waking out of water with names even porn stars would think twice about, and a lead that must hate women and a prequel movie that justifies he's motivation

And of course we have "fun" films like "You're highness" with natalie portman bending over in a trailer with a g-string while protagonists spy on her. And not one word about anything from anyone. Lastly the cult Crank series...etc.

But it always comes down to Bay in the end. The woman hating racist devil Jew lol. God bless him.

 

[Marvin]

i think an action sequence works when a) you care about the characters
( which cant be the case for the prologue, cause you basically dont know them)
or b) the sequence is layered in the plot and the actions that take place
do mean something or have consequences for the involving characters.

and the latter is certainly the case for the prologue.
there is a lot going on within this 6 minutes.

You'd be hard pressed to find an action in modern film that didn't fall into category b to some degree. Even in the dreaded TF series.

also, since im here. i used to be a big fan of michael bay, and still am somewhat. but he seems to be going overboard with the camera work during action scenes. i loved the rock and i still believe that movie really changed the standard and style of action movies, but now i dont like the excessive shaking of the camera. especially in transformers, with all the moving parts and debris flying around it makes it difficult to focus on what im supposed to be watching...maybe im getting old.lol. jj abrams (hands down, the most over rated director right now) does the same thing. i dont mind it if it used for certain scenes...but allllll the time.... makes it repetitive.

Go watch Saving Private Ryan(particularly the acclaimed opening sequence). Who's who? Where are we? Where's left and right? Who am I supposed to care about. And and why so much shaking?

It would be easy to write that wonderful sequence off as unwatchable and no one could say anything to you. But the fact is unless you're blind or pushing some sort of agenda it simply isn't true. Could SPR have been shot clearer? Sure did it have to be? Nope. And many would argue that "shaky cam" lent to the experience.

The action in the first 2 Bay formers is shot like a war zone from the human perspective(which makes hella sense). People complain cause they wanna see that's fine. My question to any one would be, if no one can see and therefore appreciate the action in Bayformers, why are they so damn popular with the audience? It couldn't be for the non-existent character and even less existent story? The jokes no one laughs at? It's gotta be that craptastic action, no doubt lol.

By the by, the only time action has ever been incoherent to myself is during Begins...but that was for the point of immersion right? Where have I heard that.

 

[Anti Goku]

Does anyone think we'll be seeing a new batman suit at some point in the movie and nolan just hid it or do you think it was only slightly modified?

 

[Syncope]

Does anyone think we'll be seeing a new batman suit at some point in the movie and nolan just hid it or do you think it was only slightly modified?

I can't see them changing the suit.

I'm not a fan of the current suit either.

 

[Indrid Cold]

Go watch Saving Private Ryan(particularly the acclaimed opening sequence). Who's who? Where are we? Where's left and right? Who am I supposed to care about. And and why so much shaking?

It would be easy to write that wonderful sequence off as unwatchable and no one could say anything to you. But the fact is unless you're blind or pushing some sort of agenda it simply isn't true. Could SPR have been shot clearer? Sure did it have to be? Nope. And many would argue that "shaky cam" lent to the experience.

The thing about a good opening sequence like SPR, is that it engages the viewer with questions to start thinking about. The first 5-7 minutes of film are crucial in setting up your world to an audience member, because if you lose them there you probably will lose them for a majority of the film. These first moments of the film are "the hook" that will help your audience decide if they can stay with this story for the next couple of hours.

The thing about hooks though, if you have the audience member asking too many questions from the get go, they have the potential to look over many crucial story beats. This is in part why I think "Inception" went over some people's heads on a first viewing.

 

[oleander]

The best "discussors" if you will tend to know a fair deal about both sides of the story let alone argument. It's very easy(and popular) to write someone like Bay off as a soulless *****e that shoots runway models and action scenes for money. Pardon me if I'm one of the few that took the time to research and present some contrary evidence. But I digress.

Which, you will notice, I am not doing. What I said -- and what I am continuing to say -- is that even with my limited knowledge of the films in his oeuvre, it is clear to me that Bay is not a director who necessarily puts the story first; if that was in and of itself an erroneous statement, you were free to correct me. That there is a market and an audience for his brand of film-making is indisputable, and I'm not crapping on that.

I tend to agree with this but only to a point. Nolan get's huge pass where others don't it seems.

One has to be willfully dense to ignore the amount of fluff in a modern Nolan picture. If he truly truly was as you say, putting story first at every juncture the films would almost certainly have no action along with a lot of other stuff.I'd go so far as to say they would be a fraction of the running time as well. I may be being a little obtuse here but one can't deny the little things. How much of Nolans chase scenes for example are truly necessary for story? In some cases are they even needed at all(see begins). Let's be honest here Nolan works for a big studio and what's more he works for the studio's audience. Even he panders. He's just smart about it.

A car flying on roof tops? Why?
Now I 'm hearing things about football stadiums...

First, you're establishing a false dichotomy between action and storytelling in film: one is not achieved at the expense of the other. It's not a zero-sum game. I don't know why you say that a movie which puts the story first "would almost certainly have no action along with a lot of other stuff." That kind of logic implies that big-budget action-packed projects can't have a cohesive story at its core, which -- come on, that's not true.

Second, you're establishing another false dichotomy between storytelling and entertaining: I made that distinction in how I view Nolan and Bay's film-making styles, but that does not mean that they are polar opposites and you can only achieve the one by sacrificing the other. Sure, criticize Nolan's execution (and I do: the Inception skiing scene leaves a lot to be desired) but to say that his action scenes are unnecessary for his storytelling is a bit much. Unnecessary in that context is "remove this scene from the movie and it won't change the impact of the scene that comes right after"; I would disagree with the examples you provided. Something would be changed. Something would be lost.

I see what you're saying with this. And I mostly agree. However what people never fail to grasp is intent. Bay is that way on such projects because the productions calls for it. For example if Bay were to make a sequel to "Something about Marry" next year. He would fall into these decision tropes yet again. "Gags above story," if you will. And the comparisons to Nolan would continue even then.

Bay isn't failing at something he isn't trying to do, he's succeeding at something he is(note the returns). Notice how no one ever makes lack of story telling assertions to the likes of Todd Phillips? The TF series and the Bad Boy series are Action Comedies first. Why can't we receive them as such? That's not to say Bay hasn't failed at more traditional dramas(bruckeimer aside), a lot of the criticism is ill conceived on the premise I outlined. But again I digress. Would Bay turn in a sequel to Shawshank into a girls behind bars action comedy? Well he(alone) did similar with the prestigious Transformers property so who's to say right?

I am perfectly willing to accept Michael Bay movies as what they are: big-budget CGI-laden action comedies that make the studios a lot of money and entertain many people. He's good at what he does, and that's why he has opportunities to continue doing what he does. I'm not one of those people so he's not going to get my money with these movies, and that's okay: his bank account won't miss my meagre contribution of twelve bucks, and I don't get any pleasure from slagging him on the internet.

What I am not willing to accept assertions that Nolan and Bay are similar film-makers, simply because they can both get the studios to approve of their astronomical budgets.

I like you're last line. More people should adapt that mindset.
However this misogynistic misconception is more of this anti bay bs that quite frankly get's too much mention around these parts. If you'll allow me.

Not only are the "heroines" in bay films empowered (even in bad boys one). But they are often times central. Yes he does pander here and there I'll fault him on that. If anything inception is more against women then any bay movie in premise alone. Then we have the oh so glorious James bond series everyone(including Nolan) champions. Which is famous for half naked women waking out of water with names even porn stars would think twice about, and a lead that must hate women and a prequel movie that justifies he's motivation

And of course we have "fun" films like "You're highness" with natalie portman bending over in a trailer with a g-string while protagonists spy on her. And not one word about anything from anyone. Lastly the cult Crank series...etc.

But it always comes down to Bay in the end. The woman hating racist devil Jew lol. God bless him.

Oh, now Michael Bay's misogyny is a "misconception"? And "anti gay bs"? No, I'm sorry: I can't allow that. I can't allow that at all. James Bond has nothing to do with it. The blatant fanservice of Your Highness has nothing to do with it. Michael Bay being a Jew has nothing to do with it. His treatment of women, on and off camera, has everything to do with it, and your dismissive assertion that his female characters are "empowered" is not good enough an excuse, for Bay or for any other director. It just so happens he's the one we're talking about right now.

But I don't want to get into a fight about female empowerment through the male gaze on this forum and derail from the topic -- which we've sort of been doing already -- but if you are interested in continuing this conversation, and I do have a lot more to say, then by all means we can continue it elsewhere.

 

[Octoberist]

I like Michael Bay but it doesn't excuse the awfulness and exploitive tone of Transformers 2. Part 3 was much better because it was tedious and obnoxious as part 2.

 

[The_Raganork]

A wonderful trailer leaks and we're stuck arguing Bay vs. Nolan

 

[Nevincer]

A wonderful trailer leaks and we're stuck arguing Bay vs. Nolan

Crap, I've just gotten back here. They've gone back to arguing Bay vs. Nolan? FML.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Not only are the "heroines" in bay films empowered (even in bad boys one). But they are often times central. Yes he does pander here and there I'll fault him on that. If anything inception is more against women then any bay movie in premise alone. Then we have the oh so glorious James bond series everyone(including Nolan) champions. Which is famous for half naked women waking out of water with names even porn stars would think twice about, and a lead that must hate women and a prequel movie that justifies he's motivation

Inception...oh, you mean the film where a female character turns out to be more talented at dreaming than all the males (in fact, if we take what people said about Mal at face value, both her and Ariadne were better at building dreams than the guys.) The film where a female character saves the male 'hero' at the end by finally getting him to wake the **** up? (so to speak)

Pray tell, how is that anti-women?

And of course we have "fun" films like "You're highness" with natalie portman bending over in a trailer with a g-string while protagonists spy on her. And not one word about anything from anyone. Lastly the cult Crank series...etc.

Bay has done all that and more so your point is...what?

Honestly, I don't hate Michael Bay. I also don't think Michael Bay hates women. I think he sees us as sex objects and little else, and while that is extremely offensive I don't find it hateful so much as *****ey.

 

[CinematicESP]

Batman better have ****ing ice skates...

 

[Mr. Fixit]

^^ And nipples?

 

[slimshady247]

A wonderful trailer leaks and we're stuck arguing Bay vs. Nolan

Exactly. I hate you all.

 

[Darkness Falls]

how can you even compare nolan to bay

 

[Nevincer]

Exactly. I hate you all.

 

[Anti Goku]

Whats wrong with you guys aren't we supposed to be discussing the dark knight rises not having an argument between two directors?

 

[oleander]

Ugh, sorry guys. I'm done with that conversation. Back to watching the trailer a couple more times before diving back into studying for my very last final. Now is not the time for arguing on the internet; that comes later.

 

[DKDetective]

I can't see them changing the suit.

I'm not a fan of the current suit either.

Neither was I, but I think it looks much better this time around. The same Batsuit can look great or horrible depending on how it is shot. Just compare how the Begins suit looks in Begins compared to how it appears in TDK.