The Dark Knight Rises Best to watch the trilogy as Bond films, not Batman

[Anno_Domini]

I’ve said it over and over again – Batman as a character is such a strong concept, he’s the kind of character that you can take him in any number of ways and it still feels right.

And in that moment, Bruce Timm gives us the reason why the ending of The Dark Knight Rises is absolutely fine. Or at least should be to CB fans.

 

[batfreakforever]

Batman & Bond are my favorite series/characters. I can see similar things but Nolan's Batfilms are not Bond in a cape.

 

[OutRiddled]

So let me get this straight...you trash the opinions of some of the most well-respected Batman authors around, and then take the word of CRISPIN GLOVER as gospel? And do Back to the Future or Charlie's Angels not count as a successful box office movie? Did he forget he was in those movies?

My head hurts.

You don't know the difference between a provable claim and an un-provable claim. "I love The Dark Knight" is not provable, it's just an opinion. Crispin Glover's claim can be tested by doing a statistical analysis, of which you can use the results to provide a very strong case in support of his argument.

Considering that I just gave you an academic argument about accumulated / measured probabilities that has roots in rhetorical and epistemological philosophy all through the ages back to Aristotelian phronesis, and you ignored said argument in favor of a half-baked theory on opinions, I think that no, you actually wouldn't take their analysis seriously.

Even though in the quotes Joker provided, they gave specific, concrete examples of how Nolan's batuniverse was faithful to the comic books that they were directly involved in creating. Examples which you ignored as mere "opinion."

You've been misusing the phrase "argument from authority." You've been mis-defining logical fallacies. You demand evidence from comic book authors about what comic books contain (yeah, that's kinda like demanding evidence from George Lucas that Vader is Luke's father in Star Wars). You're just digging your hole deeper and making your argument more bizarre.

It has nothing to do about whether it was 'faithful' or not.

I won't bother addressing the rest of your post, as it is a load of nonsense.

I've lost track of the number of times I've proven you wrong on things like that. From things like claiming Heath Ledger saying he was struggling to not act like Jack Nicholson, to trying to say why Nolan chose Bane.

The thing of it is that it's always too easy to prove you're wrong on these things. The proof is always readily available all across the Net from these people's own mouths.

You haven't proven me wrong, I just haven't found the right sources yet. The discussion is always left open, because this is a discussion forum not a debate forum.

 

[The Joker]

You haven't proven me wrong, I just haven't found the right sources yet. The discussion is always left open, because this is a discussion forum not a debate forum.

You're never going to find the right sources because they don't exist. Every time you make a claim you can never back it up but somehow it's always easy to provide sources that refute your claims.

Take the hint.

 

[OutRiddled]

"It’s a combination of reading all the comic books I could that were relevant to the script and then just closing my eyes and meditating on it," he says. "I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices — it was important to try to find a somewhat iconic voice and laugh..."

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=21560

Studio execs had strongly suggested that the Riddler be the film's primary villain but filmmakers felt the character too derivative. The filmmakers ultimately decided to use Bane as they felt he was strikingly different than the Joker from the previous movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

 

[ThePhantasm]

I won't bother addressing the rest of your post, as it is a load of nonsense.

What you really mean is "I didn't understand it. When I asked for an academic argument I didn't really want one. I don't understand the nuances of logical fallacies or rhetorical rules that are ages old in philosophy. So I'll just call this nonsense."

You cherry-pick your experts to support your own opinion, you misunderstand the distinctions between opinions, facts, and claims, and your argumentation basically amounts to "no you're wrong" and "nyuh uh." All anyone has to do is count all the points made by me across the past page that you've flat out ignored.

I'm done with this discussion.

 

[BatLobster]

You don't know the difference between a provable claim and an un-provable claim. "I love The Dark Knight" is not provable, it's just an opinion. Crispin Glover's claim can be tested by doing a statistical analysis, of which you can use the results to provide a very strong case in support of his argument.

And you don't know the difference between holding an opinion while acknowledging that other well-respected folks hold the opposite opinion and holding the misguided belief that, just because it's your opinion, everyone else who's smart must agree with it, and if they say differently they're lying sycophants.

No one is trying to get you to change your opinion OutRiddled. We're not trying to "checkmate" you into realizing Nolan's take on Batman is good. We're just trying to get you to realize that these movies really worked for a lot of people and it's not just a fluke that they were successful. It comes across as extremely bitter when you just spit on the words of a bunch of highly respected folks. You know I recall Bruce Timm has said a few slightly negative things about Batman Begins too, so he's not just a blind supporter. Animation and comics are completely different industries than film, they have nothing to do with one another. There's no reason for them to kiss up.

It didn't cater to your tastes as a Batman fan. That's too bad. Maybe next time. Lots of fans in your boat.

But for a lot of people, it did cater to their tastes and was very satisfying. You come in here with such a chip on your shoulder that it should be hardly shocking to you that some people give it back to you.

People with differing opinions can get along here. Take The Joker and myself for instance. We have a lot of very different opinions about TDKR. We've had many 'a debate about it.

But your method of debate only ends up winding up the folks you disagree with even more. It is obvious that most of the people in these high profile roles have a certain level of fame attached to them. But you just take that basic idea and run way out of bounds with it when you say things like "Anne Hathaway was only cast because Alice in Wonderland made a billion dollars." Unless you were just being intentionally hyperbolic, can't you see why that's a ridiculous statement to make? First of all, she was plenty famous before that role. She hadn't made Alice in Wonderland when she was being considered for the role of "Vultress" in Spider-Man 4. And Alice in Wonderland wasn't by any stretch her most well-known role. So, of course Nolan eyes high profile talent, or rising talent. There are tons of high profile, attractive actresses in Hollywood. He auditioned many of them and chose Hathaway. You implying that the studio was controlling the casting decisions based on box office receipts is a bogus claim that you cannot prove.

That's just one example of the kind of arguing that is only going to attract negative attention. Unless of course, that's what you're after.

 

[OutRiddled]

I don't know where you people get your warped conclusions from.

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that Ms Hathaway was in a movie that made over a billion dollars at the box office mere months before she was cast had absolutely nothing to do with her getting the role..

 

[BatLobster]

I don't know where you people get your warped conclusions from.

Yeah, I'm sure the fact that Ms Hathaway was in a movie that made over a billion dollars at the box office mere months before she was cast had absolutely nothing to do with her getting the role..

You're making it sound like that's the sole reason. If it was, why not cast Mia Wasikowska as Catwoman, as she was actually the main character?

It's just a frivolous statement. Her being in a successful movie surely isn't a bad thing in anyone's eyes, but she was already very well-known before that movie came out and didn't gain that much more star power because of it.

So you're argument basically boils down to, "She was cast because she's a famous actress". Otherwise I have no idea what you're trying to say. And if that's what you're trying to say, I award you a cookie.

 

[The Joker]

"It’s a combination of reading all the comic books I could that were relevant to the script and then just closing my eyes and meditating on it," he says. "I sat around in a hotel room in London for about a month, locked myself away, formed a little diary and experimented with voices — it was important to try to find a somewhat iconic voice and laugh..."

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?nid=21560

And where is the part about trying hard to not act like Jack Nicholson?

Studio execs had strongly suggested that the Riddler be the film's primary villain but filmmakers felt the character too derivative. The filmmakers ultimately decided to use Bane as they felt he was strikingly different than the Joker from the previous movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv

IMDB is your source lol? They report so many wrong things all the time. Nobody ever listens to them. Not to mention if you look at your link you posted you'd see ANYONE can edit their trivia page. For all we know you just inserted that in yourself just now lol.

Here's an example of some of the BS they've had. They once listed Aunt May in Spider-Man 3 as becoming Carnage: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/...updated-imdb-lists-may-parker-as-carnage.html

 

[OutRiddled]

I'm never said that it was the sole reason she was cast. But considering how many actresses are out there who were just as capable (if not more so) than Hathaway at the time..

 

[OutRiddled]

And where is the part about trying hard to not act like Jack Nicholson?

Like a typical Nolanite, you have to have everything explained to you..

..but it's quite obvious, because Nicholson was the most iconic live-action Joker at that point, so in order for his version to be as iconic (if not more so), he would need to work hard to make sure that his version is nothing like Nicholson..

You need to learn about the value of making inferences.

IMDB is your source lol? They report so many wrong things all the time. Nobody ever listens to them. Not to mention if you look at your link you posted you'd see ANYONE can edit their trivia page. For all we know you just inserted that in yourself just now lol.

Here's an example of some of the BS they've had. They once listed Aunt May in Spider-Man 3 as becoming Carnage: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/...updated-imdb-lists-may-parker-as-carnage.html

Every encyclopedia makes mistakes, but that doesn't discount the entire encyclopedia..

Everything is fact-checked:

Every piece of data submitted to the IMDb is checked by the Database Content Team before it goes live. The team is split into three project groups, each with a specific area of responsibility. These responsibilities are:
Contribution - Improving all aspects of the contribution process.

Coverage - Filling data gaps and expanding our content coverage.

Smart-Processing - Improving our internal processing workflows.

http://www.imdb.com/czone/?ref_=tt_cn

 

[The Joker]

Like a typical Nolanite, you have to have everything explained to you..

..but it's quite obvious, because Nicholson was the most iconic live-action Joker at that point, so in order for his version to be as iconic (if not more so), he would need to work hard to make sure that his version is nothing like Nicholson..

You need to learn about the value of making inferences.

Translation: I am taking Heath's words about making this character memorable in the movie and twisting them into him saying he was trying to not be like Jack Nicholson.

Thank you for proving again you're 100% wrong. It's almost criminal how easy it is to show up your arguments for the nonsense they are.

Every encyclopedia makes mistakes, but that doesn't discount the entire encyclopedia..

Everything is fact-checked:

Every piece of data submitted to the IMDb is checked by the Database Content Team before it goes live. The team is split into three project groups, each with a specific area of responsibility. These responsibilities are:
Contribution - Improving all aspects of the contribution process.

Coverage - Filling data gaps and expanding our content coverage.

Smart-Processing - Improving our internal processing workflows.

http://www.imdb.com/czone/?ref_=tt_cn

So tell me where was this brilliant fact checking service when they listed Aunt May as Carnage lol? I'll tell you; it doesn't exist. Again IMDB has the most notorious rep for being untrustworthy about their info.

LOL not to mention there's a conflicting piece of info in their trivia section: "According to 'Christopher Nolan, Bane was chosen as the film's main antagonist "to test Batman mentally as well as physically."

Oh this is too easy.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm never said that it was the sole reason she was cast. But considering how many actresses are out there who were just as capable (if not more so) than Hathaway at the time..

There you go again, inserting your own opinion into an argument that you're attempting to make 'factual'.

There's always going to be several capable actors who could potentially be great for a given part. It comes down to how well they audition and the director's gut instinct, knowing the whole script and what they would have to be able to pull off. By all accounts, Hathaway blew everyone away with her audition. And also, Nolan seems to like casting against type. There is some value in having a performer show people a different side of themselves, it keeps people on their toes and keeps things fresh. Case in point, Heath Ledger.

Heath Ledger was NO ONE's initial first choice to play The Joker. If you think that was a studio influenced decision, I don't know what to say. Not that there'd be any point in trying to go "big" with that role anyway, since most stars of today are still dwarfed by the size of Jack Nicholson's star. After seeing Batman Begins and loving it, Ledger inserted himself into the running by having his agent put him in contact with Nolan, because he felt he had something to bring to the role.

 

[Anno_Domini]

At least this thread is getting face time when the OP has been banned, lol.

 

[OutRiddled]

Ledger may have been in the running but Brokeback Mountain would have certainly put him right at the top of the list.

Crispin Glover was the fan choice but as he said, he wasn't even approached because he hadn't been in a hit movie for some time.

People are not chosen just because of their auditions.. some actors are not even asked to audition because of their previous work. But we will probably never know as the audition process is usually kept secret.

 

[BatLobster]

Yes. Nolan himself praised his work in Brokeback Mountain and cited it as a reason he trusted Heath with the role. But that was because of his performance, not the box office receipts. Which were modest anyway- it made $83 million domestically, so now that's an entirely different discussion than the point you were trying to make about Alice in Wonderland.

And yes, obviously there has to be some sort of criteria to get you an audition when we're talking about huge summer tentpole movies. They're not gonna comb the globe in search of the perfect hidden gem, the auditions would be endless.

It's just like any job. Candidates with the right level of experience often get first consideration. But ultimately it still comes down to the taste of the director. There's a lot of factors. I know this. What you said just came off as an attempt to trivialize Hathaway's acting ability in relation to her getting the role...which given the discussion we were having at the time, I'm sure it was.

 

[The Joker]

Christopher Nolan wanted Heath Ledger to play Batman in Batman Begins: http://www.totalfilm.com/news/christopher-nolan-considered-casting-heath-ledger-as-batman

This was before Brokeback Mountain. But Heath declined the part.

 

[OutRiddled]

Of course he would consider lots of actors.. but he has to go through the studios for major decisions like that. It never said he was offered the role.

http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=heathledger.htm

Lifetime Gross Total (15): $955,554,799
Average: $63,703,653
Opening Gross Average (8): $29,709,937 (Wide Releases Only)
Adjusted Total: $1,179,156,600
Average: $78,610,400
Worldwide (Un-Adjusted): Total: $1,892.3 million

 

[ThePhantasm]

Thank you for proving again you're 100% wrong. It's almost criminal how easy it is to show up your arguments for the nonsense they are.

His arguments are hilariously bad. I keep sitting here stunned thinking "oh my gosh he can't be serious." And when you point out how bad they are, he just ignores that and moves on to a new bad argument...

Its like if bad arguments are explosions, his role in this discussion has been one long Michael Bay movie. Its entertaining for a little while, but then you get tired of the constant explosions. So I'm done with it.

 

[The Joker]

His arguments are hilariously bad. I keep sitting here stunned thinking "oh my gosh he can't be serious." And when you point out how bad they are, he just ignores that and moves on to a new bad argument...

Its like if bad arguments are explosions, his role in this discussion has been one long Michael Bay movie. Its entertaining for a little while, but then you get tired of the constant explosions. So I'm done with it.

I swear he's only here trying to troll the place (and he's not even good at it). For someone who positively hates Nolan's Batman movies he spends the bulk of his time on here discussing them at length. A moderator even had to tell him to leave the Interstellar thread in the Misc. Film forum because he kept repeating how much he hates Nolan's movies and has had enough of them.

 

[Shikamaru]

Nicholson's acting in the Burton movie may have been fun but in terms of how the Joker was written in that story, the 1989 movie may just be the worst Joker story ever told. It writes the Joker in the exact opposite way he should be written and breaks almost every rule about the character.

A mob boss that wants revenge on Batman and prove that he is better than him? A man with a name? A character that is basically thoroughly explained? A man that fears death? All of that is completely the exact opposite of what the Joker is. All of this is the fault of Burton and the writers btw, not Jack's. Jack's performance is fun to watch but the main thing that hurts the Joker in that movie is the way the script characterizes him.

Thus in other words, Ledger and Nolan trying to make TDK's Joker the exact opposite of the Burton/Jack's Joker is a good thing because Burton/Jack's Joker is the exact opposite of the Joker in general. lol

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't think Joker was just a "mob boss" in Batman 1989. He was clearly a psychopath even before he got dropped in the vat of chemicals. He's always been insane. Dropping him in the vat just brought that to a whole new level.

Which brings an interesting perspective to the whole "I made you, you made me" thing. Batman didn't make the Joker. He did externally of course. He changed the appearance. But the Joker has always been ugly on the inside, whether his name was Jack Napier or the Joker.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

James Bond has influenced Nolan and his Batman, Batman has influenced James Bond (Skyfall). Influences are circular. Especially in the big budget movie business.

 

[Shikamaru]

I don't think Joker was just a "mob boss" in Batman 1989. He was clearly a psychopath even before he got dropped in the vat of chemicals. He's always been insane. Dropping him in the vat just brought that to a whole new level.

Which brings an interesting perspective to the whole "I made you, you made me" thing. Batman didn't make the Joker. He did externally of course. He changed the appearance. But the Joker has always been ugly on the inside, whether his name was Jack Napier or the Joker.

Never said he was just a mob boss.

And yes, he was a psychopath even before he got dropped and that is another problem. You brought up a very good point.