The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 145

[BatLobster]

I actually prefer to look at this trilogy as a Gotham city story, rather than a Batman story. It works better that way, makes more sense. I'm not a fan of TDKR. At the most basic level it didn't tell a story I enjoyed. I see quality in it, but it just doesn't do anything for me. It looks good but doesn't get me going.

That's a take I can totally respect, where I can only back off and say "fair enough".

Here's a pretty interesting article I found....

25 Blockbuster Threequels: Did They Sink Or Save Their Franchises?
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...nd-how-they-did-for-their-franchises-20130502

Awesome article, thanks for posting. Threequels have always been an interesting topic for me.

 

[milost]

Especially considering that what he really nails is what sets this universe apart from that of other comic-based properties: there is a sense of time passed.

Could have fooled me.


If it wasn't for obnoxious "this happened 8 years ago, today" dialogue I'd have no idea that Bruce, Gordon, Alfred and Fox lived in a world where time had passed and they evolved.

In fact, it felt like they devolved and were down graded, especially Bruce and Gordon.




Don't even get me started on the big 5 month siege full of montage and crazy jumps.

 

[The Joker]

Now it's "loads" of people? Lol. I've said from the beginning "a few", but okay, twist my words around, it's cool :

Show me where I started to say "loads of people", because I have actually either said a few, or the chunk of the people who didn't like TDKR viewed it that way. But a chunk of people also follows up with the few as in, the chunk of the few that didn't like TDKR. But, again, twist my words around for your convenience.

You said, and I quote, a good chunk of the people who were unhappy with TDKR disliked it because it wasn't TDK 2.0. Considering how polarizing TDKR is that is loads of people.

Unless you're going to argue TDKR doesn't have lots of detractors.

LOL! Do you expect me to know which specific thread right off the top of my head?

Oh it was only in one thread now? I thought it was happening everywhere when the movie was released. You change your story as much as Joker does about his scars

It was one of the first poll threads on the rating for the film is when I started to read certain comparisons.

Comparisons. Now that is something entirely different. Drawing comparisons between the sequels is very normal. That doesn't mean people want a carbon copy of the previous movie.

They're basing nothing on their opinions actually. They only feel like they're basing it on concrete evidence when it's only their wishful thinking.

People have bent over backwards to list and explain the flaws and problems they had with this movie. The last several pages of this thread alone are a beautiful example of some of it. It's fine if you don't agree with their views, buy you have the gall to say they're basing it on nothing.

That's ignorance.

It's one thing to have proof such as how everyone knows what went wrong behind the scenes with Spider-Man 3, but it's another for it to only be wishful thinking when there's nothing "concrete" about Nolan losing his heart or whatever you want to call it while making TDKR.

For the umpteenth time nobody is stating it as an undeniable fact. It's an opinion based on the lower quality of the movie. They look at the flaws, how the movie falls short of it's predecessors, and they feel Nolan was not as invested in it as he was in the previous two. That's what you can't seem to comprehend.

 

[regwec]

They're basing nothing on their opinions actually. They only feel like they're basing it on concrete evidence when it's only their wishful thinking.

Your second sentence voids the first, but anyway, we are basing our opinions on observations. That's what criticism is. There is no 'concrete evidence' other than what is in the film itself. We have all seen it, so we all have the same material 'on the table' as it were.

As for 'wishful thinking'...that is just an odd thing to say. Is there anyone who really 'wishes' they found a film more disappointing than it actually was? It is more likely that someone who is determined not to be disappointed by something will blind themselves to its obvious faults.

 

[BatLobster]

I think I get what Anno meant by that. It's like certain people who have made that claim have difficulty accepting that perhaps, this is the movie Nolan wanted to make and was invested in making...so they come up with the rationalization that he didn't care as much. It explains why someone they respect put out something "subpar". I guess I get it, I just don't even remotely agree with it whatsoever.

As I've said, not every bad or mediocre movie is a result of not caring. It's reductionist to say a movie turning out good is as cut and dry as simply "caring more". I know Nolan has made it seem easy, but making even a halfway decent movie is no mean feat. A lot goes into what ultimately makes a movie good or bad. Sometimes things seem amazing on paper but don't translate. There's plenty of reasons other than Nolan not caring that it could have led to it being disappointing, if you found it to be that.

 

[Tequilla]

I think I get what Anno meant by that. It's like certain people who have made that claim have difficulty accepting that perhaps, this is the movie Nolan wanted to make and was invested in making...so they come up with the rationalization that he didn't care as much. It explains why someone they respect put out something "subpar". I guess I get it, I just don't even remotely agree with it whatsoever.

No. You are wrong. He didnt have his heart and stuff....

Film criticism in a whole new level Anonymous people reporting the emotional attachment of the director.

 

[regwec]

Anonymous people reporting the emotional attachment of the director.

Would it be better if they used their real names?

 

[Tequilla]

Would it be better if they used their real names?

If you would have been involved in the production of the film....yes.

 

[regwec]

Don't quite understand. Are you trying to say that an inference of the director's commitment to a film can't be drawn from the film itself? Because, if so, the flip side must be that you shouldn't praise a director's commitment if a film is good.

 

[James.B]

"Films are subjective-what you like, what you don't like. But the thing for me that is absolutely unifying is the idea that every time I go to the cinema and pay my money and sit down and watch a film go up on-screen, I want to feel that the people who made that film think it's the best movie in the world, that they poured everything into it and they really love it. Whether or not I agree with what they've done, I want that effort there-I want that sincerity. And when you don't feel it, that's the only time I feel like I'm wasting my time at the movies."

-Christopher Nolan

 

[BatLobster]

-Christopher Nolan

Which is why it's a rather bold claim to say that Nolan broke his own sacred rule there and didn't give a sincere effort.

 

[Tequilla]

Don't quite understand. Are you trying to say that an inference of the director's commitment to a film can't be drawn from the film itself? Because, if so, the flip side must be that you shouldn't praise a director's commitment if a film is good.

I would love to know how do you measure the inference , without having worked in the movie , or even having a method of comparing is effort through different movies. Quality ? So a director who is highly committed to a movie , cant make a blunder ?

Lets make a simple challenge. Which directors have you seen most of his filmography ? Could you give me their emotion-timeline throughout their careers ? Movie per movie ? Their turmoil from picture to picture ?

As for your question , if the film is good...is good.The correlation isnt linear.Raging Bull is Scorsese 2nd best movie and is always noted as a project he didnt even want to make.

Why would i praise the director commitment for a movie , if i have zero idea if he was committed ? I praise him for the result.

 

[Kane52630]

Before this thread gets too heated....

Just curious, where would you guys rank all the Bat films?

 

[milost]

Just curious, where would you guys rank all the Bat films?

Hell.


The home video/blu ray thread.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

Before this thread gets too heated....

Just curious, where would you guys rank all the Bat films?

—Batman and Robin
—TDKR
—60's Batman Movie
—Batman Forever
—Batman Returns
—'89
—TDK
—Begins
—Mask of the Phantasm

 

[regwec]

Favorites-

B89, TDK, BB, BR, TDKR, the others.

I would love to know how do you measure the inference , without having worked in the movie , or even having a method of comparing is effort through different movies. Quality ? So a director who is highly committed to a movie , cant make a blunder ?

You can't measure an inference, it is emotive by nature. It isn't an empirical process, but that goes for a lot of things that are staple topics of conversation. I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with saying x's performance showed his commitment to y, or that a's whimsical direction showed a lack of commitment to b. As long as the comment is addressed as opinion, it is perfectly valid.

Lets make a simple challenge. Which directors have you seen most of his filmography ? Could you give me their emotion-timeline throughout their careers ? Movie per movie ? Their turmoil from picture to picture ?

No one ever claimed anything of the sort, but, as a bare example, I think it's fair to say that George Lucas had more commitment to the first three Star Wars movies than the prequels. I don't need to read his diaries to make that inference, as it is just a rebuttable statement of opinion, drawn from observation.

As for your question , if the film is good...is good.The correlation isnt linear.Raging Bull is Scorsese 2nd best movie and is always noted as a project he didnt even want to make.

Why would i praise the director commitment for a movie , if i have zero idea if he was committed ? I praise him for the result.

Okay, but then why are you so defensive of the notion that Nolan may not have been so fired up for TDKR? If it doesn't matter, then just avoid making yourself so cross by getting caught up in a debate of that nature.

 

[Snow Queen]

Before this thread gets too heated....

Just curious, where would you guys rank all the Bat films?

-TDK/TDKRises
-TDKReturns
-BB
-UTRH
-MOTP
-SubZero
-Y1
-66
-Forever
-89
-B&R
-Returns

 

[The Joker]

Before this thread gets too heated....

Just curious, where would you guys rank all the Bat films?

I'm just doing live action here, because there's loads of animated ones:

The Dark Knight
Batman Begins
Batman Returns
Batman '89
Batman 1966 movie
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin

 

[BatLobster]

I'll follow Joker's lead and stick with live action, far too many animated and it's a separate category IMO.

TDK
TDKR
BB
89
Returns
1966
B&R
Forever

Returns and 89 are always flipping for me. Pretty sure I've made lists with Returns ahead of 89.

 

[Kane52630]

As for me...

Mask of the Phantasm
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Batman & Robin
Batman Returns
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman 1966 Movie
Batman 89
Batman Forever

 

[regwec]

Wow. You really rate Batman and Robin.

 

[The Shape]

Wow. You really rate Batman and Robin.

Just when we thought we'd seen it all.

 

[BatLobster]

That's Kane's claim to fame!

Say that 5 times fast.

 

[the last son]

I'm glad people are criticizing the acting. Hardy was nowhere near as good as people say. Anne was miscast and couldn't sell me on her character. Caine, bale, and Levitt were ok.

 

[milost]

The Dark Knight
Batman '89
Begins
Returns
Batman 60s
Forever
Batman and Robin
TDKRises