The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion & Speculation Thread (NOT A LOUNGE) - - - Part 58

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]381645[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]381507[/split]

 

[venus_ice]

I summon the thread manager.

 

[Nevincer]

 

[The Guard]

Was THE DARK KNIGHT really that game changing, though?

Simply saying "it's a game changer" doesn't really mean anything on its own.

Game changing implies that it has changed the game.

Has it?

The bar is raised...but the bar was already being raised.

The Dark Knight certainly took it to the next level, I won't argue that. And if the statement is the quality of the actual filmmaking, that's one thing. I don't see that carrying over to other superhero films too much. The cinematography, the shot choices, etc. These are purely Nolan/Pfister elements.

So what else has changed, exactly?

Superheroes still make cheesy jokes. The same plot conventions apply. The Avengers heroes' films haven't been character studies. Character exploration hasn't exactly been a focus in superhero movies other than in the X-Men movies, where it more or less always was. Nolan made a very good movie with The Dark Knight. But, at least so far, it is an anomaly to me, not a game changer.

And for all the innovation it has in places, TDK still has many, if not all, of the action/superhero movie cliches.

The hero thinks about quitting.
The death of a loved one to create drama.
Hero kills the hero-turned villain or villain.
The hero saves all the innocent people.

To me, it's BATMAN BEGINS that was the game changer. That's the film whose influence is most widely felt, even outside the superhero genre.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Thread Manager, now THAT'S a game-changer.

 

[venus_ice]

Quick Venus, our thread banner.

My Master!

 

[Kane52630]

Alright so any bets on what thread number it will be once we get news about the 3rd trailer?

I'm thinking #65.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Was THE DARK KNIGHT really that game changing, though?

Simply saying "it's a game changer" doesn't really mean anything on its own.

Game changing implies that it has changed the game.

Has it?

The bar is raised...but the bar was already being raised.

The Dark Knight certainly took it to the next level, I won't argue that. But if the statement is the quality of the filmmaking, that's one thing. I don't see that carrying over to other superhero films. The cinematography, the shot choices, etc. These are purely Nolan/Pfister elements.

So what else has changed, exactly?

Superheroes still make cheesy jokes. The same plot conventions apply. The Avengers heroes' films haven't been character studies. Character exploration hasn't exactly been a focus in superhero movies other than in the X-Men movies, where it more or less always was. Nolan made a very good movie with The Dark Knight. But, at least so far, it is an anomaly to me, not a game changer.

And for all the innovation it has in places, TDK still has many, if not all of the action/superhero movie cliches.

The hero thinks about quitting.
Death of a loved one.
Hero kills the hero-turned villain or villain.
Hero saves all the innocents.

To me, it's BATMAN BEGINS that was the game changer. That's the film whose influence is most widely felt, even outside the superhero genre.

I didn't want to say it, but I think you hit the nail on the head. I think it's impressive how big of an impact BB had on the industry for a film that honestly was borderline not going to make enough money to get a sequel.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

It would take years for us to decode that it doesn't break conventional storytelling methods?

No it will take years to decide whether or not it's a "game-changer."

Breaking conventional storytelling methods is not the only way a film can be a game-changer. By the very nature of the term, a game-changer is something that changes the "game" which in this case is film making. Storytelling methods are only 1 of MANY different aspects of film making. Maybe The Avengers is not a game-changer in that aspect, but that doesn't mean there aren't other areas where it will eventually change the "game."

The reason the Dark Knight (Or BB if you prefer) was game changing is because it changed the way several filmmakers approached making superhero movies (as evidenced by First Class). Maybe The Avengers will do the same thing in a different way, time will tell.

 

[Sharkboy]

Yep, It's Batman Begins that rewrote the rulebook on not just superhero films but franchise reboots.

Casino Royale, Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, First Class, Star Trek, Friday 13th, Elm Street, TASM.

I'm not saying reboots are completely unheard of before BB, but it was definitely BB that set gears in motion sucessfully.

Heck reboots are all the rage in video games now.

 

[venus_ice]

Alright so any bets on what thread number it will be once we get news about the 3rd trailer?

I'm thinking #65.

That sounds about right.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Alright so any bets on what thread number it will be once we get news about the 3rd trailer?

I'm thinking #65.

Hmm, just news about it? I say #63.

 

[Fudgie]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

 

[redfirebird2008]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

I would laugh, but apparently it was a serious comment.

 

[Kane52630]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

 

[Nevincer]

Alright so any bets on what thread number it will be once we get news about the 3rd trailer?

I'm thinking #65.

I bet that a few threads ago, as a joke, except it was directed at any news at all. Then part 55 happpened. That's probably a safe bet, though I'm with you.

 

[gorillanesthsia]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

Ironically, while I don't agree with all of this, I think this is just one of the reasons why Nolan has done things that no one else has ever before done with Batman in film.

 

[Blue Sugar]

Lol. Even if that's his opinion how does it makes it less of an "origin" story?

 

[Boom]

I do agree with the main point the guy is trying to make. Bruce does seem to have pretty much everything handed to him in Batman Begins - as far as direction and equipment are concerned. I hesitate to call him a self-made man in that film, and it bleeds over a little bit in TDK. That has been, and continues to be, one of my biggest irks about Nolan's franchise.

 

[Sharkboy]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

Yeah yeah yeah, and Bruce is G.W. bush in TDK, we've heard it all pal.

 

[Nevincer]

A guy in the Begins forum hit the nail on the head:

"Batman Begins is the worst origin story by far. Most of us likely came from comics so it's hard to see the movie without any bias. But if you look objectively, there's one gigantic problem with BB: Nolan's Bruce Wayne/Batman is utterly pathetic.

If you really take a good look at the story, you can barely even call Nolan's Batman a superhero. He doesn't come up with the idea of creating a figure people can fear, Ra's does. He needs constant pep talks from both Rachel and Alfred because of his cripplingly low intelligence and aptitude for failure. He doesn't create any of his gear, Lucius makes all of it. He doesn't really show any kind of detective skills or strategic ability other than buying his own stocks then acting like a smug jerk about it. In Nolanverse, Bruce is basically a thug with superior equipment. (That he had no hand in creating.) So basically, because Nolan's Batman can do nothing by himself and shows virtually no heroic qualities other than willingly getting his ass handed to him when testing out his equipment, I don't see this as much of an ''origin'' story."

Not even gonna bother posting a gif. This post isn't even worth the humour. It's just stupid.

 

[godisawesome]

Okay, I've just formulated a theory pertaining to Catwoman and the eight year gap/"retirement" period. I'm with the group that thinks that Batman was active for a time after TDK, and has only recently retired, for about one or two years. We know that Bane has been marshalling his forces for the attack on Gotham in that interim as well, though we don't know when he started exactly. I'm willing to bet that Catwoman, acting in her capacity as a thief, is Bane's reconnaisance in Gotham and that Bruce and the police become aware of her activities before Bane rears his head, and that Bruce may be quietly observing her without actively seeking her out as Batman. With a new masked "freak" on the loose, the cops follow Catwoman and end up in a Bane led trap (the tunnel scene in the trailer with Gordon) and end up being massacred. Batman, now aware there is a larger game at foot than just Catwoman, meets with Gordon in the hospital.

Gordon's descriptions of Bane convince Batman to suit up again, but having been retired for a while, Batman tends to lean on his new "stun gun" gizmo to take out problems. He pursues Catwoman for leads at the same time that Selina Kyle begins to make her move on Bruce Wayne, leading to the encounter in the dance. Bruce pursues her, proves he's not the homicidal maniac he's suppoed to be to her, and then Bane utterly destroys him.

Catwoman, now well aware that the philanthropist Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same, defects in horror at Bane's methods and (hopefully) ultimate goal.

What do you guys think?

 

[Eggyman]

Although I wouldn't give this guy my complete backing, I do agree with some of it.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Don't most superheroes have their power handed to them? It's a miracle he even likes superhrroes.