The Dark Knight Rises IESB: Script is IN!

[That-Guy]

Many people say Dark Victory should be the inspiration for 3's plot. But the criticism with DV,that is already being voiced with 3,is that it heavily used its predecessor for support. You had to read TLH in order to understand DV,and that was criticised. So they shouldn't set up 3 directly after TDK's events.

Well, you see, sequels tend to rely on their predecessors. That's why they're called sequels.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Yea like when I saw the lord of the rings two towers I had no idea who the characters were because i didn't see the first one. That's why i consider it a very weak movie.

 

[Crook]

Well, you see, sequels tend to rely on their predecessors. That's why they're called sequels.

No, they're called sequels because they continue a narrative of a previous work. Sequels do not necessarily rely on that material, and thus can stand on it's own.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Wait. If they continue the narrative of a previous work, how do they not rely on that work? They're starting from the Point A that was established in their predecessors.

The Empire Strikes Back is great, but if you didn't see Star Wars (or A New Hope, if that's your thing), then you'd have no idea who Luke is and how he got swept up in the rebellion. Same with Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II. Neither of those movies truly "stands alone".

 

[Solidus]

Yea like when I saw the lord of the rings two towers I had no idea who the characters were because i didn't see the first one. That's why i consider it a very weak movie.

Well if you know anything about that, LOTR is not really three separate stories. It is all one. Tolkien designed it as one book, but publishers forced him to separate it into three books. So the story is one.

It is not a weak movie. Movies don't have to stand alone to be "good". It does not hurt, but some films have such vast narratives such as LOTR one film won't cut it. With LOTR the extended cuts together are around 11 and a half hours long.

The books were never designed to be stand alone books. But they were forced to be so. And again......the films are praised as well as the books for a reason. Just like Godfather Part 1 and 2, as well as some one said about the Star Wars OT.

EDIT: As for the sequel thing. TDK is a sequel as much as anything else. The story can stand alone, but the themes and character arcs are a huge part of it. And if you only see TDK most will not understand the full depth of the journey of this character. And the third will be no different. It is a continuation of characters previously built. The movie can stand alone, but you do miss a huge chunk of character arcs and themes.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

I had hoped that Bruce Malone was just being facetious.

Two Towers kicked all kinds of ass. I've never read a word of any of the books and don't know much Tolkein lore, but Hell's Deep (?) was the best movie battle I've ever seen.

 

[Solidus]

Helm's Deep near the White Mountains. And the books were outstanding. Read them in school about 15 years ago. And usually read them again every year or so. Superb books. Can't wait for The Hobbit.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

Helm's Deep? Well, at least I was close. I suppose I should give the books a look sometime. Maybe I'll read The Hobbit before that movie come out.

 

[Crook]

Wait. If they continue the narrative of a previous work, how do they not rely on that work? They're starting from the Point A that was established in their predecessors.

Think of it as Point A to Point B. Which is the first film. But the second goes from Point C to Point D. Which is a completely new road on it's own (because the plan is not to go from A to D). Overall, the arc may encompass all films, but each can stand by itself.

The Empire Strikes Back

is great, but if you didn't see Star Wars (or A New Hope, if that's your thing), then you'd have no idea who Luke is and how he got swept up in the rebellion. Same with Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II. Neither of those movies truly "stands alone".

Yes they can. Especially GFII. It may feel like you're missing stuff out because you know it's a sequel, but it really isn't. Watching Part 1 just gives you more backstory.

A better example would be the Star Wars Trilogies. Do you need to watch 1/2/3 to watch 4/5/6? Nope.

 

[Dirt Like Me]

The A to B, C to D idea is interesting. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand what you're saying.

But Star Wars Episodes1/2/3 are awful. There, I said it. So that might not be the best example. The prequel trilogy sure sold a lot of action figures, though. I'll give Lucas that much.

As for the Godfather Part II, I'll agree to disagee. I don't think I'd care nearly as much about seeing either the young Vito or the then-present Michael (in the C to D) without having seen the original (A to B). If the question is whether I would care at all, I guess I can't really answer because I saw The Godfather before the sequel.

Really, though, Godfather Part II is the holy grail of sequels. I probably shouldn't have even brought it up because I can't imagine any sequel ever getting near that level of greatness. (Dark Knight included, as much as I love it).

 

[jmc]

I think history has shown the best sequels generally are the ones that have little connection to the predecessor, and really that's how it should be. Why would I want to sit through the same thing again for 2 hours? Most sequels merely duplicate what happened previously and try and pass it off as 'better' by making things bigger and louder, and that's why they tend to suck, because we've seen it before. Things like LOTR are a different beast, it's basically one continuous story split into thirds, those don't have the luxury of being able to be separate because the story spans the entire trilogy. Like Crook said, things like GFII and ESB are fully watchable as stand alone movies, as are films like TDK, Toy Story 2, The Bourne Supremecy, all of which are considered some of the best sequels in films, what have they all got in common? Little reliance on the last film, they are totally independent stories.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Well if you know anything about that, LOTR is not really three separate stories. It is all one. Tolkien designed it as one book, but publishers forced him to separate it into three books. So the story is one.

It is not a weak movie. Movies don't have to stand alone to be "good". It does not hurt, but some films have such vast narratives such as LOTR one film won't cut it. With LOTR the extended cuts together are around 11 and a half hours long.

The books were never designed to be stand alone books. But they were forced to be so. And again......the films are praised as well as the books for a reason. Just like Godfather Part 1 and 2, as well as some one said about the Star Wars OT.

EDIT: As for the sequel thing. TDK is a sequel as much as anything else. The story can stand alone, but the themes and character arcs are a huge part of it. And if you only see TDK most will not understand the full depth of the journey of this character. And the third will be no different. It is a continuation of characters previously built. The movie can stand alone, but you do miss a huge chunk of character arcs and themes.

I was being sarcastic to prove the point that a work that continues right from the last does not mean that its bad. Of course I dont consider any of the LOTR films weak.

 

[Rodrigo90]

But it shouldn't be The Dark Knight Part II

The movie should take place 1 to 2 years down the line. That way a lot of things can be established within that time and TDK wont have any part to play at all. I think it would be a bold move. Cause if they created a movie based on everybody's efforts of catching Batman,its going to be a bit like Begins again and thats where a lot of 3rd movies fail,cause they make too many references and such to their predecessors.

BM3 should not lean on TDK for support.

 

[Bathead]

But it shouldn't be The Dark Knight Part II

The movie should take place 1 to 2 years down the line. That way a lot of things can be established within that time and TDK wont have any part to play at all. I think it would be a bold move. Cause if they created a movie based on everybody's efforts of catching Batman,its going to be a bit like Begins again and thats where a lot of 3rd movies fail,cause they make too many references and such to their predecessors.

BM3 should not lean on TDK for support.

No, it shouldn't. But neither should it ignore TDK either as some seem to suggest. There should be some kind of reconciliation with the end of TDK. Despite what some say, it definitely felt to me like there are things in TDK's ending that MUST be somehow addressed in the sequel. It doesn't necessarily have to dominate the story, but it should at least be resolved, and that Gordon and Batman's actions must have some kind of consequences, else it makes no sense to end it that way.

 

[SpiderByte]

Whatever they do, it will be awesome. Nolan has never, ever gone wrong with Bats before.

 

[Mr. Earle]

How can B3 not depend on TDK when Batman will be a fugitive and will have to clear his name because of what he supposedly did in TDK?

"OH NOES! B3 will not be independent like Nolan used to do his films, this is going to suck!"

This is one of the religions that Nolan unintentionally started and blind fanboys have converted to:

- Each film of the franchise must be able to stand on its own.
- Dont use too much CGI. You might pull another Star Trek or Spiderman. Oh wait...
- Nolan hasnt used 3D yet. Therefore if someone else uses it its a gimmick. When Nolan uses it, 3D will be purged of sin.
- IMAX isnt a gimmick because Nolan uses it. It's an experience enhancer. 3D isnt an experience enhancer. Who wants to see batarangs fly to his face?
- Realism is the key. Batman-Superman movie? Oh hell naw! That's unrealistic!
- Explain EVERYTHING. If you dont provide a science lecture on Ironman's suit, the movie will fail.

 

[Rodrigo90]

You can create a story around his current status after a few years time,not the situation directly after TDK.

 

[Robin91939]

A better example would be the Star Wars Trilogies. Do you need to watch 1/2/3 to watch 4/5/6? Nope.

That's because Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith are one story and A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are another story. One leads to another, yeah, but they were made to stand as independent trilogies in a larger saga. However, if you watch only Revenge of the Sith and not its two predecessors you will be severely missing out on a large part of the narrative of that trilogy and not understand the characterizations, the over all story, or the implications of the actions in that film. Anakin's fall wouldn't mean much if you hadn't seen him as the 10 year old from Totooine. Mace Windu's death would be of little conciquence because we hadn't gotten to know him in the two previous films. Who would understand the blockade, the Trade Federation, the rise of Palpatine? When did Anakin and Padme get together?

A good sequel builds on the previous story and enriches it.


-R

 

[Crook]

That's because Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith are one story and A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are another story. One leads to another, yeah, but they were made to stand as independent trilogies in a larger saga.

Which was actually my point. Notice the use of "/", I grouped the respective films together for a reason. I used this example because 4/5/6 came first, but 1/2/3/ technically happened earlier. The latter provides more context and backstory to the events of the PT, but they are not necessarily required viewings.

Film numbers lead people on I think. There are very few sequels that literally stand on the story of their predecessor. For the most part, you could just jump right into any random film #, and still be able to follow the story. However, if it is not "insert title #1", people fall into the illusion that they're missing a whole crapload of stuff and won't be able to understand anything. In some ways that is true, as you will always have the full package if you watch it from the beginning. But as I said, for the most part it's really just backstory for the film you're going to see next.

 

[The Joker]

A good sequel builds on the previous story and enriches it.

Exactly

 

[Bathead]

You can create a story around his current status after a few years time,not the situation directly after TDK.

You COULD. But why bother? I think resolving the leftover issues from TDK could make a terrific part of the story in B3. Why ignore that, when it could make B3's story quite compelling?

 

[GlasgowBat]

I would imagine that the reason Batman is on the run(because he has taken the blame for Harvey's murders) would be revealed to characters that don't already know in the next film, so any viewer unaware of this would learn it along with said characters

 

[Dark Knight]

Many people say Dark Victory should be the inspiration for 3's plot. But the criticism with DV,that is already being voiced with 3,is that it heavily used its predecessor for support. You had to read TLH in order to understand DV,and that was criticised. So they shouldn't set up 3 directly after TDK's events.

I dont think the movie should be everybody's focus on catching Batman and discovering who he is. I think it should start a year or 2. Where things can develop and the Harvey Dent scenario will be finished entirely and all those loose ends can be overlooked and forgotten. A fresh story can take place. The focus should be on Batman dealing with a bigger threat that equals the Joker's,while still being a wanted fugitive, and that villain also goes after Bruce Wayne.

Riddler could still drag up the past though,but its not essential at all.

I think the next film should have elements of DV, Hush, with some Knightfall and No Mans Land elements as well as some elements of TDKR.....especially the Mud Pit fight scene!

It would be great to see Batman in a brutal fight in with the hitman or assassin hunting him down be done in a Mud Pit on film!

It would be an instant classic potentially!

 

[J. Custer]

OK, my mom is a cleaning lady in Nolan's office. She tells me Nolan left for a brunch date a few minutes ago and left a copy of the script on his coffee table. Nolan has a coffee table, next to the Ikea lamp by the door. The door has kind of a trick lock that only she a Nolan know about opening. So, the coffee table. Huge. Lot's of magazines and as she was clearing off Nolans morning coffee, Y'know because he likes Italian coffee, she got a few peaks of the script because she knows I'm interested. The villan is Penguin. So Nolan comes back because he left his glasses on the oak desk next to the bay window. So she accidently backs up into the lamp and as Nolan opens the door, y'know, he wants to know what the hells going on in there. My mother immediatly says "nothing much" and takes the coffee away and a few magazines and get this...she puts the script in an old copy of the New Yorker because Nolan likes the New Yorkers cartoons and book reviews. And not to be long winded, because i really have to get going here. but she has the script to Batman: War on Crime. It's a tad tattered. coffee stains and well, I'll keep everyone informed. Just sit tight until further notice.

 

[Solidus]

My mom is the person that cleans Nolan's scripts, and makes sure dust does not get on them. She read it too. She said your lying.