The Dark Knight Rises The Christopher Nolan Thread

[Batman jr.]

Hugh Jackman was mind-blowing in Prestige.

Yes, for a minute I thought he was finally going to get rid of the Wolverine curse and pick mostly challenging roles.

I was wrong.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I hope it's canned. Sounds completely uninteresting. I want something in the vein of The Prestige.

I feel ya. It's good and all but... doesn't it feel like it's already been done!? I know, I know, he's the star-spangled man with a plan over at WB so he probably has a new take on Howard Hughes, but what I'd really, really like to see from Christopher Nolan post-TDKR is another original movie. The Prestige was great, if the Hughes movie is up to it I'll be in love again, but as it is, the premise sounds unpromising. The same with the rumours of he being behind the helm for the new Bond movie (or in this case, the next Bond movie).

I just... want to see other things.

I think Nolan calls the shots with WB. He walks into their office and tells them what he is going to make. Not WB calling him up and offering. Hence to why he's the producer of Superman, WB isn't going to touch that movie or doing anything to Snyder's vision while Nolan is around.

Bingo

Nolan gets a pass from some people for not staying faithful to the source material, because he made a good movie.

The things that he did that wrecked the movies for me, where completely unnecessary as well.

If you are going to butcher the characterizations of both Ras Al Ghul and Henri Ducard, why even include them in the movie? Why not just create a completely new character for that role. Nolan had no problem making up Rachel Dawes. I would have enjoyed the film much more had they not royally jacked up Ras.

I like a lot of what Nolan did with Bruce/Batman, but I guess my complaint with the first 2 films is that if you can't fit characters from the source material into the film, without completely trainwrecking who they are in the source material, then just don't use them.

I don't need or even want the director to just copy things panel for panel, but I don't want him to just disregard the source material either.

What he did with Harvey Dent and Ras Al Ghul's storylines is on the same level as if he would have made Batman's secret identity really Clark Kent, and he was an ex-cop who's wife and kids were shot by the mob. I mean, he's still called Batman, who cares if the rest of the story bears no resemblance to the source material.

I'm afraid I just don't agree with that at all, and i'm sure i'm not the only one around who feels that way. Both Dent and Ra's had their characterisations retained to a tee - Ra's Al Ghul is still the megalomania who sees justice in destroying the world and recreating a perfect paradise, Harvey Two-Face is portrayed in his best story-arc ever as the D.A. lost to his war against the mafia and then succumbing into his own line of villainy. The movies only highlighted the more core elements of both these characters, while taking liberties with the more superficial aspects like Ra's fascination with eco-terrorism and Two-Face's double-fisted henchmen. If anything, these films stay true to the characters more than any other adaptation (Two-Face being an example of it). Ra's even maintains his fascination with Bruce as a possible successor, which is made even more platonic and proper with their student/mentor feud and united with the theme of death/rebirth. Yes, the Lazarus Pit isn't explicitly depicted, but it has been done thematically - Ducard/Ra's own convictions of being immortal, reborn, etc. And how they fall closely to Batman's struggle to figure out what is "justice", are all in essence a Lazarus story of life, death, and rebirth. With Batman being the reborn "hero" thematically and the myth of Ra's Al Ghul "dying off."

You can make a case with the Joker though. But Bruce, Ra's and Harvey were really well maintained. As for Rachel... I dunno, I'm probably alone here, but I genuinely like the role she plays in these movies. At least story-wise. Maggie Gyllenhaal should've been in Batman Begins.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Yes, for a minute I thought he was finally going to get rid of the Wolverine curse and pick mostly challing roles.

I was wrong.

..... I know what you mean.

Logan's been great for his career, but the role doesn't nearly demand as much versatility as he can offer as an actor. Looking forward to Real Steel, haven't seen it yet.

The Wolverine sounds promising, but it was a helluva lot more promising with a director like Aronofsky onboard.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Nolan gets a pass from some people for not staying faithful to the source material, because he made a good movie.

The things that he did that wrecked the movies for me, where completely unnecessary as well.

If you are going to butcher the characterizations of both Ras Al Ghul and Henri Ducard, why even include them in the movie? Why not just create a completely new character for that role. Nolan had no problem making up Rachel Dawes. I would have enjoyed the film much more had they not royally jacked up Ras.

I like a lot of what Nolan did with Bruce/Batman, but I guess my complaint with the first 2 films is that if you can't fit characters from the source material into the film, without completely trainwrecking who they are in the source material, then just don't use them.

I don't need or even want the director to just copy things panel for panel, but I don't want him to just disregard the source material either.

What he did with Harvey Dent and Ras Al Ghul's storylines is on the same level as if he would have made Batman's secret identity really Clark Kent, and he was an ex-cop who's wife and kids were shot by the mob. I mean, he's still called Batman, who cares if the rest of the story bears no resemblance to the source material.

If Nolan did that, but still made a decent film, I'm sure a lot of people would still like his take on Batman. No one has made a truly great adaptation of Batman yet. Nolan came close, and could have done it if he would have just made up new characters instead of butchering the ones he used.

I'm not the biggest of Nolan's fans, but still, I find that untrue. He kept all the basics of every character, and he melded the modern age with hints of the Golden Age.

R'as Al Ghul- Sure, everyone in the film said his name incorrectly, but he kept the rest of the basics: Eco- terrorist, believes he is good, has father-son dynamic with Bruce, around for hundreds of years.

Harvey Dent- Lawyer, taking down the mob, scarred by criminal underworld, pushed over edge by death of wife/fiancée.

Which am I describing, the Goyer/Nolan's version, or the DC version?

 

[Sharkboy]

Nolan's main detractors come from such a mass generalization of a few of his failings in certain films. pretty much what his naysayers usually say is a) he hates cgi b) he's not an action director. Those two elements are such prominent (not integral) element in comic book films in general, that when faced with these generalizations one could imagine that he's not good at adapting comic book films. Add to the fact that he takes a lot of liberties from source material, and it tends to rub people wrong.

This is all fine and good if it wasn't entirely refutable. He doesn't hate CGI, his batman films which are supposedly cgi-lite, have such a great SUBTLE use of cgi, he uses cgi the way it's meant to be used, instead of using it as a crutch. He is also a self confessed fan of michael bay, as well as his kubrickian and hitchcockian influences he is suprisingly very influenced by summer blockbusters. He approached Batman Begins with a mind similar to that of Richard Donner in the first superman film, Inception only proves his evolution as an action director, if you don't think the rotating hallway is one of the most innovative action scenes ever, then i don't know what will impress you.

If there was ever any real complaint against Nolan's work it would be that some of his stuff may feel a bit cold, emotionless and frigid. He also has a lack of real strong female roles.

In a way Inception took any complaint directed at him and pretty much answered each one, with his best action scenes, some great female roles and a pretty intense emotional core for multiple characters, even if you don't like inceptions story (and some of you don't) Inception can only refute a lot of these criticisms.

yeah I REALLY liked Inception if you can tell lol.

 

[Batman jr.]

I feel ya. It's good and all but... doesn't it feel like it's already been done!? I know, I know, he's the star-spangled man with a plan over at WB so he probably has a new take on Howard Hughes, but what I'd really, really like to see from Christopher Nolan post-TDKR is another original movie. The Prestige was great, if the Hughes movie is up to it I'll be in love again, but as it is, the premise sounds unpromising. The same with the rumours of he being behind the helm for the new Bond movie (or in this case, the next Bond movie).

I just... want to see other things.



Bingo



I'm afraid I just don't agree with that at all, and i'm sure i'm not the only one around who feels that way. Both Dent and Ra's had their characterisations retained to a tee - Ra's Al Ghul is still the megalomania who sees justice in destroying the world and recreating a perfect paradise, Harvey Two-Face is portrayed in his best story-arc ever as the D.A. lost to his war against the mafia and then succumbing into his own line of villainy. The movies only highlighted the more core elements of both these characters, while taking liberties with the more superficial aspects like Ra's fascination with eco-terrorism and Two-Face's double-fisted henchmen. If anything, these films stay true to the characters more than any other adaptation (Two-Face being an example of it). Ra's even maintains his fascination with Bruce as a possible successor, which is made even more platonic and proper with their student/mentor feud and united with the theme of death/rebirth. Yes, the Lazarus Pit isn't explicitly depicted, but it has been done thematically - Ducard/Ra's own convictions of being immortal, reborn, etc. And how they fall closely to Batman's struggle to figure out what is "justice", are all in essence a Lazarus story of life, death, and rebirth. With Batman being the reborn "hero" thematically and the myth of Ra's Al Ghul "dying off."

You can make a case with the Joker though. But Bruce, Ra's and Harvey were really well maintained. As for Rachel... I dunno, I'm probably alone here, but I genuinely like the role she plays in these movies. At least story-wise. Maggie Gyllenhaal should've been in Batman Begins.

You don't like Joker by Nolan?

 

[Batman jr.]

..... I know what you mean.

Logan's been great for his career, but the role doesn't nearly demand as much versatility as he can offer as an actor. Looking forward to Real Steel, haven't seen it yet.

The Wolverine sounds promising, but it was a helluva lot more promising with a director like Aronofsky onboard.

Wolverine sucked, but I have a thing for the first two X-men movies. As 99% of the people out there I'm waiting for X4 in 2D by Singer. Which WILL be made.

Do you want some Ice Tea?

 

[Sharkboy]

Wolverine sucked, but I have a thing for the first two X-men movies. As 99% of the people out there I'm waiting for X4 in 2D by Singer. Which WILL be made.

Do you want some Ice Tea?

Noooo, why would you want them to continue the continuity? especially after ratner's rape. Stewart and McKellen are getting on in their years, jean grey and cyclops are dead, would you really want another Logan centric x-film?

I say they should continue the first class films move up the decades untill we meet a younger cyclops, storm and jean, and build up the films to focus on them more rather than more Hugh jackman as Wolverine.

What would be your idea for a good x4 then?

 

[Batman jr.]

Noooo, why would you want them to continue the continuity? especially after ratner's rape. Stewart and McKellen are getting on in their years, jean grey and cyclops are dead, would you really want another Logan centric x-film?

I say they should continue the first class films move up the decades untill we meet a younger cyclops, storm and jean, and build up the films to focus on them more rather than more Hugh jackman as Wolverine.

What would be your idea for a good x4 then?

Forget The Last Stand ever happened t:

Besides, X4 is in active development at Fox. t:

 

[Nevincer]

Noooo, why would you want them to continue the continuity? especially after ratner's rape. Stewart and McKellen are getting on in their years, jean grey and cyclops are dead, would you really want another Logan centric x-film?

I say they should continue the first class films move up the decades untill we meet a younger cyclops, storm and jean, and build up the films to focus on them more rather than more Hugh jackman as Wolverine.

Agreed 100%.

 

[Batman jr.]

Agreed 100%.

We'll see about...


That.

 

[akfj]

Forget The Last Stand ever happened t:

Besides, X4 is in active development at Fox. t:

It's in development, but I wouldn't say that it's active. The Wolverine and the First Class sequel will be happening before an X-Men 4 ever comes out.

 

[Nevincer]

We'll see about...


That.

Well there probably will be an X4, I'm just not too keen on the idea. I imagine they wouldn't be able to ignore X3 because with the same cast it would just confuse general audiences to have Cyclops and Jean poof back into existence. As Sharkboy said, Stewart and McKellen are getting on in years so if they did go that route it'd probably have to be the final swansong of that continuity anyway... i'd rather they just leave it alone, allow us to forget about it and transform what they had going in FC into a new continity.

 

[Batman jr.]

Well there probably will be an X4, I'm just not too keen on the idea. I imagine they wouldn't be able to ignore X3 because with the same cast it would just confuse general audiences to have Cyclops and Jean poof back into existence. As Sharkboy said, Stewart and McKellen are getting on in years so if they did go that route it'd probably have to be the final swansong of that continuity anyway... i'd rather they just leave it alone, allow us to forget about it and transform what they had going in FC into a new continity.

It's ok, you're entitled to your opinion.

But the "we'll see about... that" was meant to be in a G-man voice

 

[Sharkboy]

X4 in development means about just as much as Beverly Hills Cop 5 being in development, they can script it, attach actors to it, but as soon as it's in proper production, it's not real to me. To me they already destroyed the continuity with Wolverine and First Class (which should be in it's separate continuity) I think it's just time to start anew with first class, just like they are doing with Spider-man.

the new wolverine would have been beautiful if Aronofsky stayed on.

 

[Batman jr.]

X4 in development means about just as much as Beverly Hills Cop 5 being in development, they can script it, attach actors to it, but as soon as it's in proper production, it's not real to me. To me they already destroyed the continuity with Wolverine and First Class (which should be in it's separate continuity) I think it's just time to start anew with first class, just like they are doing with Spider-man.

the new wolverine would have been beautiful if Aronofsky stayed on.

Yeah, because even though it's the character that Jackman will always be known for, it was a lot more challenging if Aronofsky had stayed on.

So I cannot say I look forward to it...

I do look forward to...








NOLAN FOR BOND 24

 

[ALP]

Forget The Last Stand ever happened t:

Besides, X4 is in active development at Fox. t:

Ghostbusters 3 is apparently in development too lol

 

[Nevincer]

Ghostbusters 3 is apparently in development too lol

Whoa Totally forgot about that one... what happened to it? Wasn't that supposed to have started production ages ago?

 

[slimshady247]

You think they'll retcon X3 with X4? Or will they continue that dreadful storyline?

And yeah, Howard Hughes has been done before with The Aviator and there are a thousand different films about him that are already in development. I trust Nolan, but there's only so much material to work with in that guy's life.

 

[ALP]

Whoa Totally forgot about that one... what happened to it? Wasn't that supposed to have started production ages ago?

It's been in production for the past 20 years and will probably take another 20 years for Dan Ackroyd to finally let it die. He'll be on his death bed still promising another Ghostbusters movie, probably starring his ghost

 

[Nevincer]

It's been in production for the past 20 years and will probably take another 20 years for Dan Ackroyd to finally let it die. He'll be on his death bed still promising another Ghostbusters movie, probably starring his ghost

Wow... seriously, what went wrong? I'm sure back in like 2007 they had the whole returning cast attatched and I'm sure it was a go.

 

[Figs]

Wow... seriously, what went wrong? I'm sure back in like 2007 they had the whole returning cast attatched and I'm sure it was a go.

One of the main problems with it is that they're having a hard time trying to get Bill Murray to sign on.

 

[Batman jr.]

Ghostbusters 3 is apparently in development too lol

This is really lol. But hasn't it been for years?

 

[Sharkboy]

Bill's heart isn't in it, so they should just leave it be. The idea of a new group of 'busters to continue the franchise doesn't thrill me anyhow.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

X4 could viably happen... if you take it to the future in an Age of Apocalypse or Days of Future Past kind of setting/storyarc. If they allude to or keep certain key actors from the original trilogy in it, not only would it be another amazing entry into the X-Men franchise, but would give fans (myself included ) that 'redeeming sequel' they've been waiting for.

The X-Men universe is wayy too rich to die out because of a badly filmed 'Dark Phoenix' movie. There are great stories yet to be adapted onto the big-screen. And I think with a franchise that's enjoying so much history with its sequels/prequels/spin-offs, it would only add to it.