The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - Part 140

[Anno_Domini]

Anybody disappointed that Nolan couldnt give us atleast 4 movies out of his Batman series. Not that I didnt like TDKR, but I wish they could of continued the story straight from TDK. A story that would have him running from the cops, and Hugo Strange helping the GCPD to try and catch him. I dont know I didnt like how it started 8 yrs from TDK and all of a sudden the League of Shadows felt that it was a good time to attack Gotham. Oh well what a bummer, heres to JUSTICE LEAGUE!!!

Do you have any proof of sort that Hugo Strange was going to help the GCPD? Lol.

Imo, it's better to say you would have liked to see Nolan making a film that had what you would have wanted to see.

But if you ask me, Nolan had always talked about a beginning, middle and end. And we got that. And we got an amazing beginning, middle and end

 

[Anno_Domini]

Just found this:
In the movie:
>Gordon and Miranda are on trial.

>Bane requests Miranda be brought to him.

>Bruce meets with Fox and Miranda.

>Batman rescues Gordon on the ice and asks where Miranda is, Gordon replies that Bane has her.

In the script:
>Meeting with Miranda and Fox.

>Courthouse scene.

>Gordon scene

Hopefully these scenes get put back in their proper order on Bluray.

Imo, it makes more sense than in the script.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

I don't necessarily agree. The build-up to The Avengers didn't exactly pump me up. Iron Man 2, Captain America and Thor were 'meh' comic book films to me. I applaud WB here for at least taking a bold route (even though DC's Big Three are more popular than Marvel's Big Three). Making 3-4 introductory movies (in itself) is risky simply because one of these films could miss the mark and hurt the overall product. Granted, a straight-shot is possibly riskier but look at it this way from a business stand point:

WB isn't seeking to invest 750-850 million within the next three years. They rather spend half of that and see if it's worth the investment to branch out.

If Justice League fails, then WB could always go back to Superman and Batman solo films, and once every five years try an obscure title/character.

In my opinion, Justice League could still be successful if WB makes all the right moves but they can't half-ass it, and throw money at problems to compensate for ****. Green Lantern, hopefully, was a colossal lesson for those studio heads.

The Avengers was an excellent movie and could stand really well on its own without the preceding films, but if that's the case it's a terrible offense to the characters because in a crossover they just can't be explored to their fullest potential.

And this is moreso for the properties at DC, who weren't made for crossovers when they were originally created back in the 40s (unlike Stan's Marvel, which was). For my money I'd much rather see WB investing in complete solo projects that retain the potential to explore the genres these characters belong to - not plan a 2-3 part "lead in" for a JLA movie. It's one of the reasons why Iron Man 2 got stifled. I'll still say that Thor and First Avenger were terrific films on their own, especially Branagh's Thor which is an instant favourite of mine in the genre -- but there is a lot of unneeded pressure on continuity when you approach something like that, and as we've seen with X-Men First Class, leniency from it can be pure gold.

WB could still make as much money as Marvel Studios has with one big Avengers movie by making really good films that capitalise on their popular characters, like TDK they don't have to shoe-horn everyone else in it. I think the new Superman movie is doing just that and I hope that is the case. I hope it's just as successful as the Batman and that we then move onto Wonder Woman. Green Lantern was a flop, yes, but it was also a terrible film to begin with the popularity of the character had nothing to do with its losses. In fact, GL is still popular enough to make a strong comeback. At this moment, we do not need a Justice League movie.

 

[BruceCatmen]

avengers was incredibly bland

 

[Nave 'Torment']

Imo, it's better to say you would have liked to see Nolan making a film that had what you would have wanted to see.

But if you ask me, Nolan had always talked about a beginning, middle and end. And we got that. And we got an amazing beginning, middle and end

I think we got the sort of trilogy that really transforms the genre itself. He popularized reboots, capitalized on "origin" stories with BB; popularized the dark/realistic take, capitalized on "the definitive iconic Batman/Joker" movie; and finally dared for an END to a superhero film series (I'm sure the execs were flipping out initially) and delivered just that: an end.

I hope these "end" films gain just as much popularity as the others. They won't though, because no one wants to end the inspiration, but goddamn it is there something of an apocalyptic quality to a final episode! That's something you can't have anywhere else. It's like a Thor movie about Ragnarok, a Christ film about the Revelation, and a Superman film about Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow (Superman Returns missed out big there)

 

[Uroboric Forms]

I don't necessarily agree. The build-up to The Avengers didn't exactly pump me up. Iron Man 2, Captain America and Thor were 'meh' comic book films to me. I applaud WB here for at least taking a bold route (even though DC's Big Three are more popular than Marvel's Big Three). Making 3-4 introductory movies (in itself) is risky simply because one of these films could miss the mark and hurt the overall product. Granted, a straight-shot is possibly riskier but look at it this way from a business stand point:

Really? I agree about Iron Man 2, and I thought Captain America and Thor were forced out fairly quickly, but I thought Thor was one of the best MCU films.

 

[jonnywhc]

 

[Anno_Domini]

I don't believe it.

 

[Kane52630]

I hope to God he's not bull****ting.

 

[kvz5]

He got that from all the articles running the rumor.

 

[jonnywhc]

So pessimistic on here

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Oh dear. lol

 

[Travesty]

He got that from all the articles running the rumor.

Yeah, there were about 4-5 articles I saw a few days ago running the same rumor. It's not official yet, but it seems like a possibility.

 

[Dragon_316ca]

Well, WB haven't shot down the rumor yet. So, for now, it must be true.

 

[jonnywhc]

 

[Kane52630]

 

[jonnywhc]

Asked him if he was trollin and he said about the IMAX length thing...im so 50/50 on this lol. Really want it to happen!

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Modine: Why my character death get cut?

 

[kvz5]

I felt bad for Modine. He was TDKR's biggest cheerleader pre-release and his character ended up being so bland. He must've been so excited for his death scene only to find out that it was cut.

 

[BlackFox]

Well if its true that's pretty much made my day, but still not getting carried away yet

 

[jonnywhc]

Asked him if he was in anymore scenes than we saw in the current cut..

''one important one''

 

[JackWhite]

I just wanted his epic demise via tumbler back in, or an explanation why it was cut.

I know Chris said he didn't use the wide shot of Joker and Chechen in front of the burning money, with Joker saying "This town is mine now" because the mics couldn't pick up the sound, or something like that. So an explanation would ease my mind.

 

[TinkerTailor]

Will someone tell that hot head to calm down and stop revealing WB's plans.

 

[Micromind]

It is difficult to tell when Modine is being serious and when he is joking, he could be right or he could be joking. LOL.

 

[kvz5]

Will someone tell that hot head to calm down and stop revealing WB's plans.