The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - Part 143

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

Although I love watching RDJ as Iron Man, I have 0 hype for Iron Man 3.

There's no meat on the bone to be hyped for.

 

[georgec]

Nothing with the heart and soul that TDKR carried from beginning to end.

Truer words have ne'er been spoken.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I'm with the majority on this one. The Avengers is a fun flick and is a great ending to "Phase One" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe but it wasn't something truly amazing, or something that really meant something on film as The Dark Knight Rises was, but that doesn't keep Avengers from being my second favorite CBM. It's really awesome to say two CBMs that came out in the same year became my two favorite CBMs, but I can only view Avengers as for what it is, a fun CBM. Nothing with the heart and soul that TDKR carried from beginning to end.

I feel the exact opposite. I felt like TDKR was given to us simply because the fans wanted it, and was lacking a lot of the care and heart that the first two had. It had a nice facade of heart, but it left me feeling really empty. Especially the whole "this is the end, but is it really the end?" ending. The entire movie just felt like an obligatory trilogy-ender instead of something crafted with care and dedication.

Avengers, on the other hand delivered more than I expected. I was completely expecting a cash-in on the previous successes of Marvel Studios. Instead, it increased the depth of the MCU a great deal and gave us a grande, cohesive super hero universe in movie form. Which had never been done before. It also reflected a great deal of optimism and hope in an increasingly complicated world.

A lot of people say that the Avengers was a Michael Bay-esque popcorn flick. But just because a movie's themes and meaning aren't pounded into you heavy-handedly doesn't mean that they aren't there. That's why I hate it when people call the Avengers fun, but shallow.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm with the majority on this one. The Avengers is a fun flick and is a great ending to "Phase One" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe but it wasn't something truly amazing, or something that really meant something on film as The Dark Knight Rises was, but that doesn't keep Avengers from being my second favorite CBM. It's really awesome to say two CBMs that came out in the same year became my two favorite CBMs, but I can only view Avengers as for what it is, a fun CBM. Nothing with the heart and soul that TDKR carried from beginning to end.

Avengers is definitely fun, but I found it lost some charm on home video. I loved my theatrical experience with a packed house. All of us were laughing and clapping throughout. Without the communal experience, it loses some of its luster for me. Still a really good movie and probably my 2nd favorite from Marvel Studios, slightly behind the first Iron Man film.

 

[Polaris23]

I agree with Mark Millar, and I'm glad to hear an industry professional's thoughts, I'm always curious as to what particular writers/artists think of the work that is based on their art form. I wish I knew what people like Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Grant Morrison, Jim Lee, Finch, Tim Sale, or Jeph Loeb thought of TDKR. Guys to work on Batman all the time.

 

[titansupes]

Avengers is definitely fun, but I found it lost some charm on home video. I loved my theatrical experience with a packed house. All of us were laughing and clapping throughout. Without the communal experience, it loses some of its luster for me. Still a really good movie and probably my 2nd favorite from Marvel Studios, slightly behind the first Iron Man film.

Every word. Exactly.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I felt like TDKR was given to us simply because the fans wanted it

This isn't the first time I've heard this, but I don't really get it really. I can see how some can view that the plot isn't "cared for" as with BB and TDK with TDKR's plot having been rushed in certain areas, but the plot feels just as complex and Nolan definitely felt like he tried to give a great ending and an ending that will be very memorable for any cinematic trilogy.

I agree with Mark Millar, and I'm glad to hear an industry professional's thoughts, I'm always curious as to what particular writers/artists think of the work that is based on their art form. I wish I knew what people like Paul Dini, Bruce Timm, Grant Morrison, Jim Lee, Finch, Tim Sale, or Jeph Loeb thought of TDKR. Guys to work on Batman all the time.

Specifically with anyone who's worked on Batman:TAS, have they ever said anything about Nolan's trilogy?

 

[the last son]

The Avengers was easily the worst out of all four of the solo movies of their heroes but better than IM2. That movie was made for 5 year olds. It was a movie I really thought of walking out on during the midnight showing just because it was so boring and predictable. I came to watch an action movie with a thrilling story as I told it was. Not some comedy movie. To be honest that movie could have been rated PG. It was a kids movie. There is nothing wrong with that but when all of the solo movies are more engaging and solid there is no excuse for it to be that bad. I may not have loved TDKR but at least it tried. The avengers just flat out made a popcorn movie that was not even good at that.

 

[BlueLightning]

I loved the Avengers. It was one of the nicest cinematic experiences I had. It was fun, witty and had a heart. I got home and started raving about how it is practically a classic comic book brought to colorful life, and the nature of optimism that permeated the film. However, that said in repeated viewings there is not much else to discover, and becomes a less engaging. For me, I get invested more with Rises (or Begins and TDK for that matter) than with Avengers because the story, characters and themes are a lot more compelling.

 

[Brother Jack]

I liked Avengers. It was fun and respected the characters, and you really couldn't reasonably ask for anything more. It is what it is, and it is quite an achievement in itself.

But I need a juicy character arc to really LOVE a movie, and Bruce's arc in TDKR did that for me. Nobody in Avengers really had a nice, complete arc.

This. Rises is really a personal story of redemption for Bruce Wayne framed around a sort of modern historical epic. I just love that.

With that said, I don't think it's very appropriate to compare the two films. They're different animals, despite having some similarities and being in the same overarching genre. There's no reason to say which one's better; they can be enjoyed just as much for different reasons. I thought Avengers was great fun.

 

[georgec]

I'm glad this thread is coming around back to loving TDKR again.

 

[redfirebird2008]

This isn't the first time I've heard this, but I don't really get it really. I can see how some can view that the plot isn't "cared for" as with BB and TDK with TDKR's plot having been rushed in certain areas, but the plot feels just as complex and Nolan definitely felt like he tried to give a great ending and an ending that will be very memorable for any cinematic trilogy.

I don't feel like you could have possibly had such good acting if the whole project was phoned in. Certain aspects of the story might have been phoned in, but I also felt certain aspects of BB/TDK's storylines were phoned in too. The Alfred and Bruce relationship in particular was done way too well to say this was just done for the hell of it. And I'll be damned if anyone accuses Hardy of phoning it in. That guy put everything he had into it.

 

[BatLobster]

I think calling TDKR phoned in is probably the worst insult one could throw at Nolan. He's made it very clear that his philosophy on movies is that if the filmmaker is half-assing it, the audience can detect it. That is part of why he is so adamant about shooting things practically whenever he can. I think you can criticize TDKR for a number of things, but Nolan not caring or being lazy is just not one of them. Just like all his other movies, there's a lot of passion there and the thing feels very labored over, even in areas that didn't necessarily have to be.

I would say perhaps his priorities shifted more towards telling a more grand, more visually based story (using the silent era as an influence, for example), but I think he was emotionally invested in the project and it came across to me. When you take on a project of that size you're leading your entire cast and crew into battle. Frankly I'd be shocked any single one of them felt that he led them astray or lacked the passion or vision necessary to hold something so gigantic together. All you hear is about how great the atmosphere on set was.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't think, when assessing a work, how committed the filmmaker was mentally or physically as he was making it should matter. Or how much of a good time the actors may or may not have had. Only what's on screen should be scrutinized. A filmmaker could have a billion excuses or a crew can have a zillion anecdotes of precise events that led to the formation of an improvised scene that may have weakened the film; none of those really matter, what matters is that it is on the finished work and it is a legitimate mar, no matter where it came from. A film should be judged by itself, separated from whatever production machinery that helped birth it.

Let us not forget that actors often have the most grand time working on the most mediocre romantic comedies, while some of the greatest, most challenging films ever made have had incredibly troubled productions, many involving scuffles between demanding directors and actors. Backstage shenanigans don't really matter. What matters is the finished piece of artifice, and only that.

 

[Ryan]

I feel the exact opposite. I felt like TDKR was given to us simply because the fans wanted it, and was lacking a lot of the care and heart that the first two had. It had a nice facade of heart, but it left me feeling really empty. Especially the whole "this is the end, but is it really the end?" ending. The entire movie just felt like an obligatory trilogy-ender instead of something crafted with care and dedication.

That's exactly how I would sum up how it felt to me.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't think, when assessing a work, how committed the filmmaker was mentally or physically as he was making it should matter. Or how much of a good time the actors may or may not have had. Only what's on screen should be scrutinized. A filmmaker could have a billion excuses or a crew can have a zillion anecdotes of precise events that led to the formation of an improvised scene that may have weakened the film; none of those really matter, what matters is that it is on the finished work and it is a legitimate mar, no matter where it came from. A film should be judged by itself, separated from whatever production machinery that helped birth it.

Let us not forget that actors often have the most grand time working on the most mediocre romantic comedies, while some of the greatest, most challenging films ever made have had incredibly troubled productions, many involving scuffles between demanding directors and actors. Backstage shenanigans don't really matter. What matters is the finished piece of artifice, and only that.

Then it is enough to simply say that the work failed. It still doesn't justify pointing the finger and making unfounded accusations that the filmmaker didn't care, especially if the backstage side of things supposedly doesn't matter.

I make the distinction because one is attacking the film itself, the other is attacking Nolan's integrity. There's a big difference.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Then it is enough to simply say that the work failed. It still doesn't justify pointing the finger and making unfounded accusations that the filmmaker didn't care, especially if the backstage side of things supposedly doesn't matter.

True. I guess you could say the film is lazy, not that Nolan was lazy on his day to day directing (cept Marion's death).

 

[BatLobster]

I guess I just feel there are any number of reasons for a film to not work for someone, so jumping straight to "he got lazy", especially for someone notoriously meticulous as Nolan seems a bit odd to me.

Could he have gotten a little burnt out? Sure. I just highly disagree with the position that the entire movie was just one big an act of, "Meh, guess I gotta do a third one." To call a film lazy is just as subjective as calling it passionate, and I felt the passion there...big time. The movie felt like such a sincere love letter to cinema and Batman to me.

Again, for the most part I feel TDKR suffers from over-ambition, not under-ambition.

 

[JAK®]

The Avengers was easily the worst out of all four of the solo movies of their heroes but better than IM2. That movie was made for 5 year olds. It was a movie I really thought of walking out on during the midnight showing just because it was so boring and predictable. I came to watch an action movie with a thrilling story as I told it was. Not some comedy movie. To be honest that movie could have been rated PG. It was a kids movie. There is nothing wrong with that but when all of the solo movies are more engaging and solid there is no excuse for it to be that bad. I may not have loved TDKR but at least it tried. The avengers just flat out made a popcorn movie that was not even good at that.

A lot of the real meat of the movie was contained in the dialogue shared by the characters, within the jokes you claim to be for five year olds. It's not like a Nolan movie where the characters explain the point of the film to you, as if you were a five year old.

 

[Tequilla]

That sort of lazy stuff argument , just means absolutely nothing. Its one of those expressions, the "internet critics" use , when they have no idea what to say. It only reveals their own laziness , and the enormous difficulty they have developing any sort of thought about a piece of cinema.

Today we accept everything. I read a bunch of reviews (doesn't matter if they liked it or not , the majority probably actually liked it ) from supposedly critics , and its insane how it became accepted such a low standard for film writing. I'm talking about internet stuff (here i dont read anything published that isn't relatively eloquent )

A lot of the real meat of the movie was contained in the dialogue shared by the characters, within the jokes you claim to be for five year olds. It's not like a Nolan movie where the characters explain the point of the film to you, as if you were a five year old.

Holy hell...are you four or something ? That was just....petty.

 

[Anita18]

I guess I just feel there are any number of reasons for a film to not work for someone, so jumping straight to "he got lazy", especially for someone notoriously meticulous as Nolan seems a bit odd to me.

Could he have gotten a little burnt out? Sure. I just highly disagree with the position that the entire movie was just one big an act of, "Meh, guess I gotta do a third one." To call a film lazy is just as subjective as calling it passionate, and I felt the passion there...big time. The movie felt like such a sincere love letter to cinema and Batman to me.

Again, for the most part I feel TDKR suffers from over-ambition, not under-ambition.

 

[JAK®]

Holy hell...are you four or something ? That was just....petty.

[YT]KTwnwbG9YLE[/YT]

 

[Tequilla]

Eheh , i would like to answer you but...i rather not. It's also way off-topic.

 

[The Guard]

I don't think the issue is so much that Nolan got lazy...its that he actually got more hands-on, even with the script, this time around, and the quality of the script and the storytelling suffered for it. Chris Nolan is a great idea guy, and he understands archetypes, thematics, etc, but that doesn't mean he's a great writer.

 

[shauner111]

The Avengers was easily the worst out of all four of the solo movies of their heroes but better than IM2. That movie was made for 5 year olds. It was a movie I really thought of walking out on during the midnight showing just because it was so boring and predictable. I came to watch an action movie with a thrilling story as I told it was. Not some comedy movie. To be honest that movie could have been rated PG. It was a kids movie. There is nothing wrong with that but when all of the solo movies are more engaging and solid there is no excuse for it to be that bad. I may not have loved TDKR but at least it tried. The avengers just flat out made a popcorn movie that was not even good at that.

It was fun to watch with a group of friends in a cinema the first night, but if it's only decent because of the cinematic experience then it's not really a good film now is it..

I tried watching it a second time and couldnt stomach it. It's definately a movie for 7 year olds. It's tailor made for that group of children. Doesn't mean a teenager or an adult can't enjoy it as a fun popcorn movie. But at the end of the day, these types of movies are just very typical. They've been around in a huge way like that since the 80s. There's nothing new there. I dont see what the hype is about, other than the equivalent to going to see a Transformers, Expendables, Jurassic Park, Mortal Kombat. But the latter 2 were at least original when they came out, and the dinosaurs or the martial arts fighting filled you with excitement like you've never seen before on the big screen. We had already seen Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America before...so it wasn't very fresh when it came time for Avengers. All it was, was a popcorn action movie. My blood didn't pump any quicker than usual when they fought.

Rises dismantled Avengers in every way shape or form. And people..don't give me that "it's apples and oranges" argument. They are still big budget action movies with superhero/es at the center of it all. Still a comic book coming to life. One just has more brains than the other.

Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 had something to sink your teeth into, while you were still laughing and being entertained just as much as an Avengers action sequence. The difference lies within Avengers and its failure to deliver anything more than just a toy-selling kids movie.