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

[J.Howlett]

I walked out of Rises thinking it was my favorite out of the 3. But that's cuz i was on that natural high. Now i just consider all 3 to be on the same level (for me personally). I just can't choose one over the other. I tried and it's impossible lol.

So i now look at it like it's one huge story that's seperated into 3 big chapters. Which is what it is anyhow. A real trilogy, not just 1 movie and two sequels and then the fans call it a trilogy cuz they simply stopped making more films. It really is like one huge story for Bruce Wayne so i can't name a single favorite.

Same here. Each has their strengths and weaknesses, but as a whole, it's just a remarkable trilogy that belongs up there with the greats of cinema.

If you had to push me to make a decision though, I'd give the slight, slight, slight, slight, slight edge to Knight over Rises. But, I'll admit, there are times in Rises that the craftsmanship and filmmaking on display tops portions of Knight.

 

[J.Howlett]

In terms of film, I think each has a unique place in the genre. BB effectively popularised the whole "reboot" "remake" "origin" movie staple that seems to have a slough of followers, TDK does the same with the "grim and gritty realistic" approach. It works out well because it is Batman we're talking about, the character has always been grim and realistic from the start (minus those Silver Linings in the middle). And a receptive Hollywood would've encouraged the boldness of TDKR trying to make a conclusion, or as I've said before, a Christ movie that isn't about his crucifixion but rather about the Revelations. There ought to be more movies that dares to do that with its legacy. The HP books are another good example, but as they were adapting directly it really doesn't count.

This. All of this.

 

[Nave 'Torment']

This. All of this.

I can has a high-five?

One of the things I love most about the trilogy is that each film feels unique in various ways but are all still clearly apart of a larger narrative, namely Bruce Wayne's character arc. It's a pretty hard thing to do both, making things that are distinct and familiar at the same time, and the fact that this does it makes it one of the few successful trilogies.

I know! This is exactly what I've always believed, that despite being a superhero trilogy it doesn't necessarily have to be in order for you to enjoy each film. I mean, I completely understand the Bat-fan who wants to watch this entire thing as one movie but this isn't LOTR or BTTF where it's essentially one film split into three parts -- they're each a movie on their own, and stand as their own and are enjoyable as Batman movies on their own. Fact that it is a trilogy just adds to its brilliance. That was one of the things I was skeptical about with TDKR, that it ran the risk of feeling too much like TDK and therefore a sequel only to TDK and the world from there, but thankfully in terms of tone and theme and even quality it manages to be a very different kind of movie. I think the reason this was possible is because Nolan did take his time with them and didn't make all three back-to-back. It paid off, but not many filmmakers, or hell, even writers are capable of that sort of blend.

 

[enquencle]

Serra , Lubzeki , Bob Richardson , Doyle , Ballhaus , Elswitt , Lubezki , Prieto , Claudio Miranda , Cronenweth etc , etc , etc. All guys that i would love to see working with Nolan. It will be fun to see if he's going to work with established dp's.

There's a lot of talent in that area (and even more outside US , some of them not very known in american cinema).

We can't forget Nolan wants to work with film .

Nolan and Deakins would be amazing. I hope we can see that some day.
But Lubezki sounds pretty interesting too, and I believe his style in Children of Men would adjust pretty well with Nolan. Nice choice there.

 

[Carnotaur3]

The Dark Knight Rises cinematographer Wally Pfister calls The Avengers film "appalling" - http://wp.me/p2CCWq-2hx

He's completely right. Look at the recent example of "Carrie". The teaser trailer has this long-winding CGI shot. Why? Would love to hear Wally go off on that. He's a smart guy and I've seen enough of his work that he puts the storytelling reasoning of the shots first and foremost.

 

[Boom]

Meh. He's free to have his opinion.

I, for one, found The Avengers highly entertaining.

 

[BatLobster]

To be fair, even Joss Whedon said he didn't think Avengers was a "great" film. It wasn't going for high-art, but if Wally wants to judge it against his own high standards of cinematography, I guess that's fair enough.

 

[T"Challa]

I find it hard to believe that any aspect of The Avengers was bad enough to be labelled "appalling"

 

[Drizzle]

While Wally is entitled to his own opinion, it seems like he's trying to pick a fight here. Very childish and unprofessional.

 

[Victarion]

He should leave that to Matt Modine.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Seems a bit childish what he said, but he does have a point when it comes to some of the camera work and cinematography in The Avengers. It wasn't exactly the greatest. It was still a highly enjoyable film though.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah...that amazing tracking shot was just "appalling."


Also Is anyone going to do a Nolan Batman marathon once TDKR gets released? I know I am.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I wish I enjoyed Avengers. ****in' Whedon.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

I'm definitely going to re-watch the 3 of them back to back.

 

[shauner111]

I agree with Wally that there are shots (as well as entire fight sequences) in Avengers that are just there for show. To show-off the expensive CG they were able to use, or fighting for the sake of it. It definately reminded me of Transformers where you get non stop battles that just become random after a while. Instead of doing it for the story.

But it was entertaining. At least the first time i saw it in cinema. A fun action/popcorn flick with some good laughs. But as somebody else said on this site (dont remember where)...i tried watching it a second time and i just couldnt do it. Couldnt sit through it.

Wallys comments remind me of Bales during press for Rises. Where he's like "if there are fight scenes that don't tell a story then you should just cut them out". Too bad 95 percent of action movies have plenty of stuff like that.

 

[Brother Jack]

I re-watched The Avengers recently and it struck me at times how much it looked like a TV show. Not in terms of production value, which was obviously stratospheric, but in the way the shots were chosen and how the camera moves or some cases doesn't. This clearly stems from Whedon's television background and you can see it in every aspect of the film, especially in the writing. As far as writing goes it's actually a huge benefit because it helps in dealing with large ensemble as one would in a serialized television drama. Pfister's comment is fairly typical of him. I see where he's coming from and even agree to an extent, but I still enjoyed The Avengers quite a bit.

 

[JackWhite]

I find it hard to believe that any aspect of The Avengers was bad enough to be labelled "appalling"

Avengers was a good film. Not my cup of tea, though. But you'd never catch me on some message board crapping on the film.

 

[JackWhite]

Yeah...that amazing tracking shot was just "appalling."


Also Is anyone going to do a Nolan Batman marathon once TDKR gets released? I know I am.

Back to back to back? All in one setting? I don't think I could handle it, lol. Besides, I don't think I could devote an entire day to watch the entire trilogy.

Maybe when the "ultimate edition" of the box set comes out next year; I'll try it.

 

[J.Howlett]

I re-watched The Avengers recently and it struck me at times how much it looked like a TV show. Not in terms of production value, which was obviously stratospheric, but in the way the shots were chosen and how the camera moves or some cases doesn't. This clearly stems from Whedon's television background and you can see it in every aspect of the film, especially in the writing. As far as writing goes it's actually a huge benefit because it helps in dealing with large ensemble as one would in a serialized television drama. Pfister's comment is fairly typical of him. I see where he's coming from and even agree to an extent, but I still enjoyed The Avengers quite a bit.

Yep. All Wally was really talking about was the cinematography and not so much the actual narrative of the film. And he's completely right in his assessment.

Highly, highly enjoyable film that looks like a TV show compared to the five Marvel films that lead into it, which look and feel like movies with scope.

 

[Tequilla]

Childish calling an appalling movie...appalling ? C'mon !

Visually it isn't good. I've actually laughed when i started to see it , with those low angles on Sam Jackson. Ridiculous.

Its Marvel worst shot movie. Its absurd how such an expensive movie , looks so simpleton.

 

[AnneFan]

Meh. He's free to have his opinion.

I, for one, found The Avengers highly entertaining.

Same stance I have on both matters.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Wally's allowed too criticise the cinematography of The Avengers if he chooses... and to an extent hes right.

No harm done.

 

[J.Howlett]

Its Marvel worst shot movie. Its absurd how such an expensive movie , looks so simpleton.

As cheap as Thor looked, Branagh brought the scale in terms of how it was shot compared to how Avengers was shot.

You're completely right.

 

[Tequilla]

As cheap as Thor looked, Branagh brought the scale in terms of how it was shot compared to how Avengers was shot.

You're completely right.

Asgard was shot beautifully. Those dutch angles became a little annoying , but the movie had some marvelous composition.

Now if we would talk about the 3d aspect of it....

 

[J.Howlett]

Asgard was shot beautifully. Those dutch angles became a little annoying , but the movie had some marvelous composition.

Now if we would talk about the 3d aspect of it....

Yeah, the dutch angles got to be a little much but you could tell they knew what they wanted with the composition. Branagh knows. Whedon doesn't.

I mean, that shot of Thor when he says "You people are so petty...and tiny", that's got to be one of the worse shots even seen a major motion picture in the modern age. It's just an awful shot and there's plenty of those within the film and the lighting, in certain spots, was terrible.

Again, not flaming the narrative of the film. It's a damn fun film to watch with some good moments but for the love of God Marvel, this is the swan song film of the MCU and you couldn't shoot it better than that?

In a weird way, it's a testament to Whedon's abilities as a writer that the film works as well as it does, for the most part, when it's shot so poorly.