Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Dark Knight Rises' started by Bruce Malone, Jan 21, 2014.
Nope, it's an accurate description of Knightfall.
Bronson is probably closer to proper Bane than TDKR Bane. He's certainly cooler.
Seeing Hardy in Bronson and Warrior only makes me feel more dissatisfied with his Bane.
Part of it is Hardy's goofy voice, but I also felt the permanently-affixed mask and electronic distortions really kind of muzzled him.
He's vastly more ferocious in Bronson or Warrior than in TDKR.
I’d say it’s reputation has improved
I'd say nothing substantial has changed one way or the other. Plus, we haven't had a solo Batman movie yet. That's when people's minds really start to change. If people regard Matt Reeve's Batman as one of the best, be prepared for opinions to drastically change. You see it all the time with popular franchises.
I suppose that’s true. Bvs sucking certainly improved tdkr in some people’s eyes. I just Feel since tdkr from a ratings perspective is still one of the highest i don’t think it’s reputation has gotten any worse
I think for some reason time seems to reward almost all Batman films. For instance, a lot more fans can enjoy B&R for the ridiculous factor now that there's no longer any reason to be outraged that it "killed" the franchise.
I think Nolan's films will probably take a perception hit post-Reeves, assuming it's as great as we hope. Shiny new toy syndrome always kicks in, plus Reeves might genuinely craft the ultimate, Definitive™ Batman movies. But the way I look at it, each iteration of the franchise brings the ones that came before into a wider context. I think the Nolan films and TDKR especially will become even more solidified as the big, 'traditional' Hollywood blockbuster version of the franchise that reflected post-9/11 America. Which could be a positive for some and a negative for others. And I would also argue that TDKR was pointing towards the rise of populism that has reared its ugly head in today's world by portraying its villain as a demagogue who exploited economic anxiety. Nitpicks and valid criticisms of TDKR aside, I think it's also fair to take into account how it sits in the bigger picture. It's part of any movie's aging process.
One of the reasons I think the Batman franchise is so cool is because it's been allowed to reinvent itself so many times over, and you can track its evolution alongside that of pop culture and society as a whole. Look no further than how the 60s series reflected the hippie culture of the time. And now with a film like Joker, even though it's set in the 80s it feels VERY 2019/2020 in terms of the themes. Even BvS, a film I still struggle with finding any enjoyment from, taps into xenophobia in a way that felt pretty on-point for what the temperature was like in 2016.
Bottom line, everyone's always going to have opinions- but I think the Batman franchise is pretty much one of the coolest precisely because there's been so much artistic variation, and a willingness to grapple with rich, sometimes dark themes and hold up a bit of a mirror to society, while still being a lot of fun-- sometimes doing a bit of everything at once while being pretty hilarious (IE The Lego Batman Movie). I'm just looking forward to seeing that tradition continue.
this is excellently written and I agree. I think when the dark knight released its cultural impact was immediate with its talk on privacy and terrorism. Dark Knight rises impact is happening now and the last few years with its talk on populism just like you said. Rises was just released just a little to early but now more people are recognizing it. Not as much as dark knight which would be hard but I’d say a still significant amount. I’ve also seen people attack rises now sayings it’s pro cop and pro fascism which I don’t agree with.
There have been several videos on Youtube as of late showering TDKR with praise so I'd say it's doing pretty well.
We've already had our first post-Nolan Batman movie: Batman v Superman. And it... wasn't great.
It's weird seeing posts from six years ago where I passionately defended Rises, because now I don't feel like I have to. I think there was a rush of disappointment toward the movie in 2012 because, well, it wasn't nearly as good as The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight is a masterpiece and one of the pinnacles of escapist cinema, and Rises remains flawed, though I think very good and bordering on great.
But I think seeing Batman done so poorly in BvS and Justice League (even though I'm aware Zack Snyder has a passionate minority of defenders too) has softened the criticisms around Rises' reputation. Just as older critics seemed to embrace its epic ambition more than hardcore comic fans and younger movie lovers in 2012 (whatever "Film Twitter" was back then), younger audiences who have since come of age seem to embrace the whole "Dark Knight Trilogy" as great. Rises' legacy seems more secure now, because it's part of "the trilogy," as far as comic book movies are concerned. Kind of like how Return of the Jedi gets a pass for not being as good as the first two (mind you I prefer Rises to Batman Begins, but I'm aware that's a minority opinion, particularly in fandom).
I imagine that there will be some shots fired at the whole trilogy when Reeves' Batman comes out, but they'll be from contrarians and younger folks who want to have "their Batman." Kind of like there are a few out there who need to assert Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is better than Heath Ledger's. Most agree they're both good and move on, and thank their stars they don't have to watch Leto's Joker again.
This is also kind of what happened with folks accepting Maguire's Spider-Man tenure as influential and even sometimes great (though not SM3), even if they prefer the MCU ones now. BatFleck may just become the next disappointing buffer like Leto and Garfield.
This is all very fair. I remember when Rises came out a lot of people on the left, which I count myself among, criticized it as a conservative screed against Occupy Wall Street. Yet few seem to know that the movie was actually written and began shooting before Occupy Wall Street was a thing. In all three movies, Nolan grappled with fears of social collapse. The first two were about terrorism, with TDK being much more blunt and unsettling than the more traditional good guys vs. bad guys of Batman Begins, but Rises took it a step further and considered populism and demagoguery, mostly by aping in comic book trappings the French Revolution.
It's a bit broad and top-heavy, but between Brexit, Trump, and the general rise of nationalism, it does feel like the West has drifted in this direction. I think Bane's aged quite well when Trump (puts palm in hand) unintentionally quotes the super villain during his inauguration.
I'm still not sure how unintentional that was. I've heard that Trump's speech writer is actually a fan of the movie and Bane in particular, which if true would be the absolute pinnacle of irony because, y'know, Bane was the bad guy.
I would imagine BvS having some negative impact on perceptions of the trilogy what with David Goyer co-writing it and it also being from some of the same producers and it coming so soon after TDKR it could easily be seen as an unofficial or alternate part 4 (or alternate part 3.5).
That could be true. I think people mostly blame Snyder and terrio more than Goyer for bvs at least from what I’ve seen
Yeah, nah I don't think it's like that. Mainly because Nolan distanced himself from the project as much as he possibly could-- I still don't think he's on the record of stating any sort of opinion on the film either. I still would love to know how much of Goyer's ideas made it into the film, because it was a page 1 rewrite. It's all very unclear to me, and I don't think Goyer has talked about it either.
BvS has Snyder's fingerprints all over it. With MOS, you could sort of see that it was Snyder's attempt to execute the Nolan/Goyer modern superhero origin "formula", but with BvS, it just screams Zack Snyder from top to bottom, for better or worse.
So you’re thinking Goyer had nothing to do with the movie? I didn’t know about the rewrite but that makes sense
I ended up rewatching Rises the other night. I was watching it for some research for a project I'm working on, and ended up getting sucked in and just watching the whole thing.
I don't know what it was about this viewing, but damn, it was probably my favorite viewing of the film in years. Maybe there was an added resonance to the citizens of Gotham being holed up in their homes, or a horrible demagogue pretending to care about the people-- but I really connected with it just as much as ever, if not more. It takes a while to get going, but once it does- wow, it slaps HARD. And it's just so freaking gorgeous to look at it- best pure visual storytelling of the trilogy IMO. I'm so glad Nolan has let shots linger more as he's developed as a filmmaker. I also recently rewatched Begins, and the editing gets a bit choppy there for my taste. It's not that the flaws weren't still there with Rises, but the bright spots just really sung for me. The ending is ridiculously good. Jeez, what a movie. Would love to watch it on an IMAX screen again some day.
Agreed the movie feels very relevant now with everything going and more realistic . I don’t think I would change A thing across the trilogy. I wouldn’t change Rachel dawes other than maybe keeping the same actress for both. I wouldn’t add joker if possible just because I think tdkr works perfectly on its own and I want to keep the story intact with bane because I just love the twist and the full circle it does.
I don't know that he really even pretended to care much about them, I think he was mostly just saying he hated the rich and the police and sympathizing with the criminals but it was all about punishing "the corrupt" for being corrupt rather than helping anyone (aside from releasing criminals). It is assumable that you therefore like the victims but Bane didn't do much to try to claim that or show how the corruption and wealth-hoarding did hurt others.