The Dark Knight Rises The Dark Knight Rises Trailer Thread - Part 5

[rashad]

I always thought the Incredibles is what the Fantastic Four should've been like.

Still one of the best superhero films in any medium.

 

[Gianakin_]

What I said before...a lot lies in how it's presented. A Nolan Batman film may not be much deeper than another superhero movie item for item, but it's made by a more masterful storyteller and presented better. At their core, most of these characters/stories have the potential to be as deep or shallow as any other for the most part. Basically...if Nolan did Fantastic Four, and Tim Story did Batman...I think we'd still feel the same about Nolan's film compared to Story's. Who knows....maybe someone might find the FF story...or Spidey, or Flash, or fill-in-the-bank to be 'deep' or what have you.

Not saying that the Batman films are shallow or devoid of substance....but they're not exactly renown abstract art compared to children's graphics. Damn good artist, though.

Gotcha. I got something entirely different from what you initially said.

 

[Gianakin_]

Still one of the best superhero films in any medium.

Fo sho.

 

[NolansKnight]

A Nolan Batman film may not be much deeper than another superhero movie item for item, but it's made by a more masterful storyteller and presented better.

They are deeper in context than anything else in the genre, though.

As for the trailer, consider me excited.

Heroes come and go ...

But LEGENDS, never die. (even when they do)

 

[KalMart]

Still one of the best superhero films in any medium.

I still maintain that PIXAR, collectively, are the best filmmakers working today. Be they with Bird or without. Just about every film they come out with is an instant classic.

 

[KalMart]

They are deeper in context than anything else in the genre, though.

Because they're written to feel that way, and delivered to maintain that feeling instead of expose a charade. Same might be said if he decided to do Green Lantern instead.

I'll also venture to say that by leaving it moreso in the filmmaker's control, they are at least made more primarily as works of cinema than marketing vehicles like other more recent franchises. May not quite work the same for every filmmaker (like Singer and SR...maybe just the wrong guy/vision, instead of the wrong process), but in this case, it's the right recipe.

But yeah, as Chris mentioned, we should keep this more about TDKR only.

 

[Pagan]

Of course the Joker wants to be taken seriously in as far as his nihilistic viewpoint goes.
His "point" is that it the world is a joke. the whole idea that everything "means" something is absurd to him. The way he sees things is that "in the big scheme of things" nothing really matters. It's all so temporary and pointless. Everything mankind has worked for since the dawn of history could be wiped out tomorrow just like the dinosaurs. Everything you work for all your life could be taken from you in one bad moment. A car accident or some such tragedy.
So he lives for the moment. Or in the moment.

 

[Anita18]

I still maintain that PIXAR, collectively, are the best filmmakers working today. Be they with Bird or without. Just about every film they come out with is an instant classic.

Pixar has such a great way of working. For them, it's all about the group dynamics. Ed Catmull did an interview where he said that if you put the right group of people together and let them push each other and be brutally honest, something awesome always happens. Guaranteed.

Because they're written to feel that way, and delivered to maintain that feeling instead of expose a charade. Same might be said if he decided to do Green Lantern instead.

Right. I mean, the thing about TDK for me is that you FEEL the sense of loss, helplessness, and exhaustion Gordon and Batman (and Dent before Joker got to him) have after enduring Joker's reign of terror. But they actually don't go right out and say it, it's something that the audience feels as they watch the film in its entirety. You don't get the same feeling just watching clips of it out of context. I think that's what makes it feel so palpable and real (and deep ) for many.

That sort of delayed experience certainly is not something impossible to do in a non-Nolan comic book film, but for some reason nobody else has found a way to do it yet.

 

[Sharkboy]

That's interesting, but it's hardly deep.

Here's a deep scene for you. Joker kills a bunch of school children, then in the next scene he goes home, takes off his make up, and gently plays with a family of kittens. That would be giving a character depth. Sure he's a murderous psychopath, but wait he's also kind of a nice guy here - what gives? Or maybe Joker needs to buy groceries. Is he gonna be Joker to buy groceries? That'd be a little odd. Joker just casually buying groceries. I can't picture those things because the character lacks depth. He's that guy all the time, and it's an uncomplicated existence. It'd be one thing if somehow the character's choices really, truly permeated their existence, but they don't. They're choices only affect the narrow field they are supposed to affect. In these movies a lot of things simply "must be".

Wow, I'm glad you don't write films. That's not depth, that's range...just because one character displays a certain personality consistently throughout doesn't mean their character isn't deep, it means the script isn't wasting people's time by adding useless things on screen to be perceived as deep and realistic. By your logic, we would have endless scenes where characters just ponder on every action before taking them, because that makes character depth.

Let's forget about the emotional baggage and repercussions that surround each character's supposedly "on-rails choice", let's just forget someone like harvey dent, who's character on it's own is so complex, he can be seen as both the personification as gotham, the audience member or the everyman protagonist who is taken through a white knuckle ride with both batman and the joker pulling at his soul and morals on opposite ends, with them both battling philosophy which eventually gets physically represented on him, a visual personification on the battle between order and chaos, good and evil, hope and anarchy....ignoring the greek tragedy elements of his character, ignoring that his character pretty much captured not only the entire point of harvey dent, but expanded it and summed up a lot of major themes in the movie in ONE character...and im still just talking about one of the plenty MAIN characters in TDK....but yes, he's not deep...because he didn't play with kittens in the film...and he didn't spill orange juice on his shirt and swear at his mum on the phone while ironing his trousers.

What next...two face was a terrible character because he wasn't two face long enough?

 

[KalMart]

Pixar has such a great way of working. For them, it's all about the group dynamics. Ed Catmull did an interview where he said that if you put the right group of people together and let them push each other and be brutally honest, something awesome always happens. Guaranteed.

It also takes them several years to come out with each movie...and so much of that time is spent on story, story, story. that's where it starts and ends. I have a certain pet peeve when CG-movies from other studios are lumped in with them as a collective 'genre'...I believe that they deserve a lone category.

Right. I mean, the thing about TDK for me is that you FEEL the sense of loss, helplessness, and exhaustion Gordon and Batman (and Dent before Joker got to him) have after enduring Joker's reign of terror. But they actually don't go right out and say it, it's something that the audience feels as they watch the film in its entirety. You don't get the same feeling just watching clips of it out of context. I think that's what makes it feel so palpable and real (and deep ) for many.

That sort of delayed experience certainly is not something impossible to do in a non-Nolan comic book film, but for some reason nobody else has found a way to do it yet.

(one last other-film-comparison, promise )....in SR, we saw earthquakes, tidal waves, a world-class evil fiend on a crystal island...and it was meh. In TDK...it actually felt more like the world was coming to an end, in just one city. Look what he did with a couple of bullets and a few cans of gasoline.

 

[Sharkboy]

Nope guys, still can't see what darkb was talking about, I can't see Bane being the guy that rappels down into the prison...this is based on what? his jacket?

 

[KalMart]

Nope guys, still can't see what darkb was talking about, I can't see Bane being the guy that rappels down into the prison...this is based on what? his jacket?

There's a screengrab someplace that shoes a bit more clearly that it's him...with that pullover and mask.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

But didn't Batman's actions -- all three's actions here with Lao -- result in the mob going to the Joker? Didn't them going "too far" and not "knowing their limits" unleash the Joker and cause the escalation that would eventually claim the life of Rachel?

No, this goes back to my point about "fairly distinct notions of good and evil". Batman beats up Lao and kidnaps him essentially, but when he does these things it's in the name of "good". When Joker committs comparable acts they are "evil". They are clear about who is who (as far as the audience is concerned). Of course this is kind of set in stone because it's Batman. Batman and Joker are confined to their notions of good and evil. Batman can't, for example adopt Jainism in his pursuit of good. There is a distinct boundary he can't ever cross. So you end up with some tautology. Batman is good because he's Batman.

Actually he's not. Rachel condemns Bruce time and time again, and Alfred warns Bruce of his crusade. In fact, TDK is a slow realization on Batman's part that he may be more like the Joker than he thinks, and that he may have let those people die to protect and preserve his psychosis.

Missing the point. If you were actually crazy, you'd expect that to affect someone's way of engaging reality and it never truly does. Batman is depicted as a perfectly sane individual, and his faculties are all intact. It's not a perception problem either. None of the characters regard him as crazy. They don't slink away from him when he enters a room or talk to him in such a way as to imply he was crazy.

For example in Shutter Island the way characters regard DiCaprio, even in the hallucinations you sense that characters around him perceive him differently from how he perceives himself. This raises questions about his validity as a narrator. Batman, again, never really does any of this.

Now to be fair a lot of the lack of depth has nothing to do with Nolan and everything to do with the source material. Batman has a long history, but the basic story Nolan's gonna stick to ultimately isn't very deep.

 

[KalMart]

No, this goes back to my point about "fairly distinct notions of good and evil". Batman beats up Lao and kidnaps him essentially, but when he does these things it's in the name of "good". When Joker committs comparable acts they are "evil". They are clear about who is who (as far as the audience is concerned). Of course this is kind of set in stone because it's Batman. Batman and Joker are confined to their notions of good and evil. Batman can't, for example adopt Jainism in his pursuit of good. There is a distinct boundary he can't ever cross. So you end up with some tautology. Batman is good because he's Batman.

Missing the point. If you were actually crazy, you'd expect that to affect someone's way of engaging reality and it never truly does. Batman is depicted as a perfectly sane individual, and his faculties are all intact. It's not a perception problem either. None of the characters regard him as crazy. They don't slink away from him when he enters a room or talk to him in such a way as to imply he was crazy.

For example in Shutter Island the way characters regard DiCaprio, even in the hallucinations you sense that characters around him perceive him differently from how he perceives himself. This raises questions about his validity as a narrator. Batman, again, never really does any of this.

Now to be fair a lot of the lack of depth has nothing to do with Nolan and everything to do with the source material. Batman has a long history, but the basic story Nolan's gonna stick to ultimately isn't very deep.

Which one is?

 

[Anita18]

It also takes them several years to come out with each movie...and so much of that time is spent on story, story, story. that's where it starts and ends. I have a certain pet peeve when CG-movies from other studios are lumped in with them as a collective 'genre'...I believe that they deserve a lone category.

And they scrapped Toy Story 2 with only 8 months to release, because the story wasn't good enough. Everyone knew it wasn't working, so they refused Disney's pushing to finish it as it was. They redid EVERYTHING. That takes huuuuuge cojones.

I'm not even sure Nolan has that amount of cojones on him. The guy is known for being flexible and working with what he has. *coughTDKhostageshotsandrotorsonthebatwing*

Wow, I'm glad you don't write films. That's not depth, that's range...just because one character displays a certain personality consistently throughout doesn't mean their character isn't deep, it means the script isn't wasting people's time by adding useless things on screen to be perceived as deep and realistic. By your logic, we would have endless scenes where characters just ponder on every action before taking them, because that makes character depth.

Let's forget about the emotional baggage and repercussions that surround each character's supposedly "on-rails choice", let's just forget someone like harvey dent, who's character on it's own is so complex, he can be seen as both the personification as gotham, the audience member or the everyman protagonist who is taken through a white knuckle ride with both batman and the joker pulling at his soul and morals on opposite ends, with them both battling philosophy which eventually gets physically represented on him, a visual personification on the battle between order and chaos, good and evil, hope and anarchy....ignoring the greek tragedy elements of his character, ignoring that his character pretty much captured not only the entire point of harvey dent, but expanded it and summed up a lot of major themes in the movie in ONE character...and im still just talking about one of the plenty MAIN characters in TDK....but yes, he's not deep...because he didn't play with kittens in the film...and he didn't spill orange juice on his shirt and swear at his mum on the phone while ironing his trousers.

What next...two face was a terrible character because he wasn't two face long enough?

Just wait for it.

 

[bosef982]

And they scrapped Toy Story 2 with only 8 months to release, because the story wasn't good enough. Everyone knew it wasn't working, so they refused Disney's pushing to finish it as it was. They redid EVERYTHING. That takes huuuuuge cojones.

I'm not even sure Nolan has that amount of cojones on him. The guy is known for being flexible and working with what he has. *coughTDKhostageshotsandrotorsonthebatwing*


Just wait for it.

Sharkboy is just...I don't know.

I've moved on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just look at Bush.

 

[The_Fire_Rises]

That's interesting, but it's hardly deep.

Here's a deep scene for you. Joker kills a bunch of school children, then in the next scene he goes home, takes off his make up, and gently plays with a family of kittens. That would be giving a character depth. Sure he's a murderous psychopath, but wait he's also kind of a nice guy here - what gives? Or maybe Joker needs to buy groceries. Is he gonna be Joker to buy groceries? That'd be a little odd. Joker just casually buying groceries. I can't picture those things because the character lacks depth. He's that guy all the time, and it's an uncomplicated existence. It'd be one thing if somehow the character's choices really, truly permeated their existence, but they don't. They're choices only affect the narrow field they are supposed to affect. In these movies a lot of things simply "must be".

Funny enough, that's exactly what I said right after TDK ended the first time I saw it: there needed to be way more scenes with The Joker rolling around on the floor with kittens.

Sarcasm aside, If you want a Batman movie filled with scenes of The Joker buying groceries and Catwoman going to the dentist, then fine, but to suggest that The Joker character in TDK doesn't have depth because we don't see him doing 'normal' things is ridiculous. I think the character has tons of depth, and the fact that I feel like I need to give specific instances from the film to show you that fact again makes me question how many people on this board actually watched TDK at all.

 

[paladinryan]

Sharkboy is just...I don't know.

I've moved on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just look at Bush.

Worst grunge band of the 90s, IMHO.

 

[Anita18]

Sharkboy is just...I don't know.

I've moved on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just look at Bush.

Haha, you're still here!

So um, word on the street is that TDKR is good? Y/y?

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Which one is?

Deep superhero story? Practically none of them, and that's kind of the point you made very well.

Tim Story's FF was silly, so all it served to do was highlight just how silly things were.

Nolan's Batman is dark, serious with an atmosphere of realism. Therefore it comes off like a better, more put together film despite the subject matter being just as shallow and "silly". Of course Nolan doesn't say "hey, this is a bunch of shallow crap, where's some neon lights and Alicia Silverstone?"

Nolan treats it AS IF it had a massive amount of depth, even when it doesn't. There's nothing wrong with this at all. But I find people confuse the approach and appearance with the reality that's it's really still an action movie. All in all it's fairly unconcerned with adding any depth because that's not what drives the narrative.

A Batman story with depth - Neil Gaiman's Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader. Especially "The Butler's Tale". Unfortunately Nolan could never adapt such a thing.

 

[KalMart]

And they scrapped Toy Story 2 with only 8 months to release, because the story wasn't good enough. Everyone knew it wasn't working, so they refused Disney's pushing to finish it as it was. They redid EVERYTHING. That takes huuuuuge cojones.

Yeah, I always found that amazing...and look what came out of it! I guess when your back is against the wall, you can come up with some of your best stuff. That's what I like about early works from the more renown directors...they were younger and hungrier, and more me-against-the-world which comes out in their films. Jaws, Aliens, Mean Streets, etc....

 

[The_Fire_Rises]

Plays and films are two COMPLETELY different things. Plays are written much differently than films by and large, unless you're going for that feel.

Just because a movie is really entertaining or the performances are good doesn't make it deep. Batman Begins and TDK both center around fairly strict black and white notions of good and evil. Yes Batman takes on crimes, but we're never left to question whether he is or is not a hero.

Also crime is crime. It's not as though they make some distinction (outside of a throwaway scene) between being one type of criminal versus another.

Then there is the craziness. Being Batman would necessitate craziness. Never addressed. He's almost treated as sane. Guy in a bat costume? Perfectly normal. Again, some of this shallowness is directly because of the material. Back to my point though, they're not exploring these implications with any depth whatsoever.

I know some people have already commented on this post, but after reading it, I had to say something because of how unbelieveably wrong it is.

First off, your claim that we never get to question whether Batman is a hero or not is just plain incorrect. It's pretty much the entire thematic basis of TDK.

Batman does PLENTY of unheroic things in TDK, the most obvious being the fact that rather than give in to the Joker's demands, he lets the Judge and Commissoner Lobe die. He willingly lets Harvey admit he's Batman and puts Harvey's life in a huge amount of danger. He also *hacks into every cell phone in Gotham* to try and catch The Joker. Rachel flat out says that he's not being heroic at all for letting Harvey take the fall for his inaction. Hell, he even gets **** from Maroni for letting a bunch of people die.

The Lao thing can be a further example of his unheroicness, if you think about it. He essientially invades a foreign country and kidnaps one of it's citizens, simply because he needs to wipe out crime in Gotham and complete his crusade for justice and peace. Batman's actions are extremely grey.

Frankly, the only truly 'heroic' thing Batman does in the whole movie is taking the blame for Harvey's murders at the end to try and save the little amount of hope and faith in good the people of Gotham have.

As far as the whole sanity issue, there are multiple times in both BB and TDK where Bruce is questioned about what he is doing as Batman.

I don't mind people talking about flaws in Nolan's bat films, but I'd appreciate if people watched the damn films first.

 

[Sharkboy]

So...that hobbit trailer just made me weep.

I can't believe we are getting Ridley Scott's Prometheus, Peter Jackson's Hobbit and Chris Nolan's TDKR...in ONE year. What are they doing to me?

 

[Godmaul]

TDKR will put the lid on comic book films. It'll be something of a whole different universe.

This thought has cross my mind a few times, and frankly - I really upsets me, as much as I agree with it. As someone who grew up on comics, reading the latest graphics, catching up on old issues with a few friends, etc - There are so many amazing stories to be told in those pages. It bothers me that they'll never see a silver screen because people don't have the balls to back a film that doesn't fit into a stereotype or formula proven for success.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Optimus Prime should really visit The Cultural Subtext Thread.