The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 146

[regwec]

That's an impressively long post. But, I don't agree. I do agree that TDKR is relatively feeble and would perhaps be best forgotten in the context of BB and TDK. But, reflecting only on my experience of watching these films, I feel that TDKR is a failed attempt at something worthy, while the Marvel formula is a successful attempt to exploit commercial property with the least possible effort or imagination. TDKR frustrates and disappoints me; The Avengers makes me want to go and clean the oven.

I'm sorry Milost. I wish I could agree with you and your thoughtful post makes me hope I am wrong. But as it stands, I find the Marvel Formula tedious and depressing.

 

[milost]

^ Good post. Didn't agree with some of it, but a good post all the same. Avengers bashing just reminds me of the TDK backlash the movie got after it made its money.

Do I think Avengers was the best comic book movie ever? No, but its definitely in the top 5, and its definitely not the Michael Bay-esque picture some want to paint it as.

Hell, MOS could've learned a few things from Avengers.

Thanks man, I appreciate that.

And just to be clear, I'm not some rapid Avengers nut. I saw it a couple of times and dug it then that's it (you won't find any Avengers posts out of me). Out of all the comic book films, I'd probably rate The Dark Knight as the highest depending on the mood. So this isn't some anti-Nolan or Nolan fans thing.

I just don't understand the arrogant and magniloquent views of some on here about certain films of the same genre, but the disgust, condemning and lack of understanding of others.

 

[milost]

That's an impressively long post. But, I don't agree. I do agree that TDKR is relatively feeble and would perhaps be best forgotten in the context of BB and TDK. But, reflecting only on my experience of watching these films, I feel that TDKR is a failed attempt at something worthy, while the Marvel formula is a successful attempt to exploit commercial property with the least possible effort or imagination. TDKR frustrates and disappoints me; The Avengers makes me want to go and clean the oven.

I'm sorry Milost. I wish I could agree with you and your thoughtful post makes me hope I am wrong. But as it stands, I find the Marvel Formula tedious and depressing.

That's fine reg, it's cool. Atleast we agree on TDKR (and other things as I've noticed in other sections).

I feel like Marvel has done a commendable job so far in what they've tried to achieve and their results have been very entertaining and fresh. HOWEVER, I think if they don't shake and change it up a bit, the "Marvel Studios" style will get old and stale. Maybe even exploitable commercially like you say. It certainly feels like that with their future plans and "phases". I HATE when movies are planned ahead of time when something is in development and isn't even in production yet.

Though I did admire what they did with Iron Man 3. If that was so cookie cutter and commercially "safe", I'm not so sure there would have been fan backlash towards a certain someone. Atleast it felt like they were attempting to go some place new. I guess we'll just have to see with Thor 2 and Cap in the next couple of months. Fingers crossed.

 

[Snow Queen]

Nice post, milost. I do disagree with you still, but it was a really good post. I can see where you are coming from. But, for me, there's nothing to Avengers. It feels stale, bland. It's got some good jokes (I love the Galaga one especially) but overall I didn't come out feeling wowed or impressed after the first viewing. Just meh. The first viewing though, I loved it. Second, meh. Third and so on...I really just don't care. I don't hate it, it's definitely not one of the worst CBMs but it's just so...nothing to me.

But, I just want to ask at least one question. You compare BW and Catwoman in your post and ask about their character development. But, I think you also must look at what surrounds the characters. They both definitely don't have too much character development, I'll admit. But, Catwoman doesn't have much because there's another character we're focusing on: Bruce. There wasn't much character development outside of Bruce and Gordon in BB either. Because it was Bruce's story (and Gordon got a smaller but still present character arc). This too is Bruce's story. We're following his character development the most, which does rob some other character's of their's. But, again, this is straight from BB where there was a similar situation. So, my question is, with the fact that Catwoman got a bit of the shaft in the character development part of things (though I felt she had a smaller arc), why does BW? What character in Avengers got a character arc that was focused on? At least as far as I see, no one in that film had a character arc besides the basic "I don't like you, let's fight, something bad happened, now we're cool".

 

[Snow Queen]

Though I did admire what they did with Iron Man 3. If that was so cookie cutter and commercially "safe", I'm not so sure there would have been fan backlash towards a certain someone. Atleast it felt like they were attempting to go some place new. I guess we'll just have to see with Thor 2 and Cap in the next couple of months. Fingers crossed.

At least we agree on something. t: I loved that they took a risk with IM3. Even if it didn't pay off for some fans, I loved that they were willing to take some creative risks and I hope they take more in the future.

 

[Victarion]

Catwoman most def had a small arc. She went from someone who wanted revenge on the rich and an escape from her past to a pragmatist who saw that Bane's revolution wasn't as good as she thought it'd be.

 

[BatLobster]

The difference between TDKR and Avengers to me is that TDKR feels like a movie and Avengers feels more like a TV show. And it's no surprise given who directed each.

That's not to say the TDK trilogy is "high art" (I think the whole trilogy is sublimely middlebrow), but it relies heavily on all sorts of film tropes and cliches and does everything it can to present itself like a "normal" movie. Therefore, for some people such as myself, they're very accessible in a very universal way and I can buy into the themes that they're presenting.

I think it's also completely undermining to what the whole trilogy was setting out to do to say big ideas and themes can't exist alongside big action setpieces. In what world should TDKR have been an intimate character study with no action?

Avengers, personally, wasn't my cup of tea. It gave me some thrills and laughs, and did exactly what it set out to do. I respect it for that, and Whedon seems like a very smart guy. But I simply have not had the desire to even watch it a second time because I had little emotional connection with the movie. Given that one very simple fact, it's hard for me to rate it too high on my list. It's not that it didn't connect with me in the way "oh so deep" TDK Trilogy did, it just didn't connect with me in the way that movies I like did. TDK Trilogy did that for me, they work as movies first, adaptations second.

And don't forget, there was a sect of Avengers fans who'd get offended if people suggested Avengers wasn't better than TDK, to which they'd say "it's not a comic book movie". I think both sides of the fence are wrong. Nolan's films weren't strictly high art, but they certainly weren't strictly pandering LCD shlock either. They struck a balance between thrills and depth, a favorable balance for a lot of moviegoers.

At the end of the day, there are just going to be different tastes and opinions about this stuff. I fully acknowledge that Avengers isn't tailored to my personal tastes so I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I do think it's fair to say Avengers is aiming to be family entertainment while darker Batman movies tend to be aimed more at the 15-40 crowd. And therefore the latter can deal with meatier subject matter, despite still being an action movie designed to entertain. There's room for both approaches for sure, I'm just not shy about which I respond to more.

 

[georgec]

I don't view The Avengers the way milost is discussing (not saying he insinuated that or was directing the post at me). I enjoyed it. I simply liked TDKR a lot more.

People tend to create rivalries with things they like, don't like, etc. They should just enjoy X and not feel compelled to put Y down in order to enhance their own enjoyment of X.

If you go into an Avengers forum you'd probably find people dogging on TDKR or Nolan to justify why they like Avengers. It's not healthy, but I guess it happens.

 

[milost]

What character in Avengers got a character arc that was focused on? At least as far as I see, no one in that film had a character arc besides the basic "I don't like you, let's fight, something bad happened, now we're cool".

That was only part of it though, they all had underlying issues that they were grappling with before they even meet that are worked out BECAUSE they came together.


Tony Stark - The hero, playboy thing after two films has gotten to his head. He's narcissistic, haughty and quite frankly annoying (atleast to me initially). After his little feud with Rogers (who questions his character), he's actually humbled during the events of the film. He's not so quick to brush things off. Instead of being selfish, he's completely selfless at the end of the film. He even sees himself in the enemy with that whole "Loki is a diva" dynamic. Stark was an attention seeker too. It took seeing that characteristic with Loki to snap him out of his own superiority complex which is interesting considering Loki THRIVES on the exact opposite.


Steve Rogers - Man out of time, fish out of water. There's a loneliness there and he even has a small case of PTSD himself (like Stark later in IM3). He quickly find his purpose (essentially what he was born for) to help others by a seemingly trustful organization. Soon, he's disillusioned with the whole conspiracy thing when he finds that the people he takes his orders from are really no different or trustworthy than the "enemy". He doesn't have a character arc per se, (certainly not one as large as Tony Stark) he's still that unchanging, pip squeak kid from Brooklyn with a heart, but it's the scenarios he's now put through that are compelling. He questions the things going on around him, the audience don't question him.


Banner - Introverted and isolated, Banner has the classic case of fearing the unknown. If he's not careful, Banner could totally let loose and rip anyone apart, including loved ones and innocence. That's not just his fear either, but literally everyone around him. That's got to do damage to a personality. The only safe option in his mind is complete repression. After being provoked, he essentially does let loose but after character interactions, specifically with Stark, he learns to control the beast inside and make the curse a blessing. He's a small ingredient, but without him, the Avengers doesn't work. Not the team, and certainly not the film. With what little Banner/Hulk do in Avengers, they sure pack more of a punch and do more than the previous Hulk movies (which were ALL about the Hulk). Those versions would always just go into hiding, this version does that initially, but when needed, he actually learns to "suit up" like the rest of the team. It's not just "Bruce Banner, the scientist", he's capable of going out on the field too.


Thor - He initially suffered from the same arrogance that Stark suffered from in his own film. His role is much smaller in this one than the others. However, we do get to see the side of him that is desperately trying to redeem and bring his brother back. There's a conviction there and it really does seem like he pities his brother. That sort of personality alone makes him kingly.





I think that's pretty good between four characters with a 143 minute running time, but maybe that's just me. I also think the script gives them pretty even screen time and juggles their differing characters quite well. That's not an easy thing to do, neither is writing smart, funny dialogue, or making the characters play off each other in a way that makes sense and is faithful to THEIR unique character. While I think a Cap-centric film would have been more compelling if they structured that way (like all the deleted scenes suggest), I do like the straight forward direction they took regardless. Some times the simpler choice is the better one. If it had taken it's original, non-linear, downbeat approach, I doubt it would have been as successful. People seem to forget all the stuff they filmed. The fact that they were able to cut that down into a logical, fast paced story speaks quality to me. They could have made a real mess.

 

[Scarecrow_King]

I'm sorry Milost. I wish I could agree with you and your thoughtful post makes me hope I am wrong. But as it stands, I find the Marvel Formula tedious and depressing.

The Phase One films were formulaic, but I think that was the best way for them to introduce these characters that most people have never heard of. And they still made them enjoyable, which is really the only thing that matters. Now that Phase One is over, I think we'll see more risk-taking. Iron Man 3 already tried some new things.

 

[BatLobster]

This will probably get me banned from the internet, but I would say I definitely preferred Iron Man 3 to The Avengers.

 

[Snow Queen]

Milost, I won't quote your post since I think we all know how much that multi-quoting can jam up threads but this is the response:

I will agree Stark had the largest arc, so I won't disagree with you there. My only problem with is it that I didn't believe his transition. There definitely was a light switch moment but I didn't feel the build up to that moment. Which was disappointing to me since I think his arc in Iron Man is one of the best in any CBM.

As for Steve, I feel he was the one that could have used an arc the most but completely got shafted. We got him realizing how SHIELD and HYDRA are similar but then it's just dropped, never mentioned again and has no real bearing on the plot. I think that the film could have been stronger if they made his arc the central one, fleshed it out some more and kept in that deleted scene of him in the modern era. That scene, in my opinion, is the best scene in the film. Too bad it wasn't in it.

Banner I felt also got shafted in the script. Ruffalo did a great job and was doing way more than the script but I felt his arc just kind of started then cut out the middle of it, then gave us the end of it.

Thor didn't have one. He had emotions, definitely, but no arc. I'd be more okay with this if it wasn't for the fact that we have his adoptive brother as the main villain. There is a lot of potential there but he's given no arc.

This will probably get me banned from the internet, but I would say I definitely preferred Iron Man 3 to The Avengers.

Spoiler

Just kidding, of course. I agree completely.

 

[kvz5]

People tend to create rivalries with things they like, don't like, etc. They should just enjoy X and not feel compelled to put Y down in order to enhance their own enjoyment of X.

If you go into an Avengers forum you'd probably find people dogging on TDKR or Nolan to justify why they like Avengers. It's not healthy, but I guess it happens.

Unfortunately, that's just how it is. Obviously it's not unusual to enjoy and prefer one over the other but trashing one to elevate the other is very common. And it's not just exclusively a DC/Marvel thing. I mean, I've seen people trash Nolan's Batverse when they're explaining why they like Man of Steel and vice versa. And it also happens to even the same characters: Raimi/Webb Spiderman, Burton/Nolan Batman, Donner/Snyder Superman, etc.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

The difference between TDKR and Avengers to me is that TDKR feels like a movie and Avengers feels more like a TV show. And it's no surprise given who directed each.

That's not to say the TDK trilogy is "high art" (I think the whole trilogy is sublimely middlebrow), but it relies heavily on all sorts of film tropes and cliches and does everything it can to present itself like a "normal" movie. Therefore, for some people such as myself, they're very accessible in a very universal way and I can buy into the themes that they're presenting.

I think it's also completely undermining to what the whole trilogy was setting out to do to say big ideas and themes can't exist alongside big action setpieces. In what world should TDKR have been an intimate character study with no action?

Avengers, personally, wasn't my cup of tea. It gave me some thrills and laughs, and did exactly what it set out to do. I respect it for that, and Whedon seems like a very smart guy. But I simply have not had the desire to even watch it a second time because I had little emotional connection with the movie. Given that one very simple fact, it's hard for me to rate it too high on my list. It's not that it didn't connect with me in the way "oh so deep" TDK Trilogy did, it just didn't connect with me in the way that movies I like did. TDK Trilogy did that for me, they work as movies first, adaptations second.

And don't forget, there was a sect of Avengers fans who'd get offended if people suggested Avengers wasn't better than TDK, to which they'd say "it's not a comic book movie". I think both sides of the fence are wrong. Nolan's films weren't strictly high art, but they certainly weren't strictly pandering LCD shlock either. They struck a balance between thrills and depth, a favorable balance for a lot of moviegoers.

At the end of the day, there are just going to be different tastes and opinions about this stuff. I fully acknowledge that Avengers isn't tailored to my personal tastes so I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I do think it's fair to say Avengers is aiming to be family entertainment while darker Batman movies tend to be aimed more at the 15-40 crowd. And therefore the latter can deal with meatier subject matter, despite still being an action movie designed to entertain. There's room for both approaches for sure, I'm just not shy about which I respond to more.

Excellent post, man. Bravo.

 

[Anno_Domini]

TDKR isn't exactly some high art (certainly not what people try and make it out to be)

As much as you'd like to believe this, TDKR is at the same level of BB and TDK when it comes to high quality filmmaking as a rare quality for a CBM. TDKR may have some hits and misses, but the general consensus is that all three films are solid filmmaking at its best and together when formed as a trilogy, it has something that is unmatched with any other CBM out there. Its complex storytelling, even going back to the origin film, is much better than the general CBM of the "been there, done that" formula you usually see. Hell, even something as simple-minded as a nuclear bomb can be looked at in a metaphorical way of thinking with TDKR. The last two films of Nolan's trilogy, especially deals with real-world problems when it comes to the different classes of a city/community(the poor, the "middlemen", the rich and powerful). Yes, TDKR could have expanded as much as TDK, but that wasn't the point for TDKR. TDK was the film that needed to focus the most on Gotham City because that was TDK's main attraction and main stars, the city.

When it comes to The Avengers, it's a nice step above some CBMs, but nothing that film has can stand toe to toe with Iron Man. That film(IM) and Spider-Man 2 come to mind first and foremost when it comes to Marvel films and how it takes this character and wraps him around such a film that means more than what actually could be a regular, same ol' comic book movie.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

^ Good post. Didn't agree with some of it, but a good post all the same. Avengers bashing just reminds me of the TDK backlash the movie got after it made its money.

Do I think Avengers was the best comic book movie ever? No, but its definitely in the top 5, and its definitely not the Michael Bay-esque picture some want to paint it as.

Hell, MOS could've learned a few things from Avengers.

Like what, how to make me completely not care about the main characters?

What Avengers does great (and something no cbm has done again so far) is handle all the heroes excellently and give each of them the spotlight (well, except for Hawkeye, I guess, but he's a goddamn archer in the midst of demi-gods, super-soldiers and guys in robot suits, so nobody's gonna complain). But as for emotional investment, it's definitely lacking, not completely, but it's clear that wasn't the main thing it was going for, so I'm not holding that against it.

Like BatLobster said before, it's about what you want from a movie. Me, I want a story that I can get invested in, that will get me to care for the main characters and that has something to say. Iron-Man did that for me and so did The Incredible Hulk. That's why I prefer the TDK Trilogy and now Man of Steel over the Marvel movies. Doesn't mean I don't like the latter (well, except for IM 2, that was horrible).

 

[Skrilla31]

As much as you'd like to believe this, TDKR is at the same level of BB and TDK when it comes to high quality filmmaking as a rare quality for a CBM. TDKR may have some hits and misses, but the general consensus is that all three films are solid filmmaking at its best and together when formed as a trilogy, it has something that is unmatched with any other CBM out there. Its complex storytelling, even going back to the origin film, is much better than the general CBM of the "been there, done that" formula you usually see.

I give Nolan credit for his ambition and for raising the bar when it comes to how one perceives a superhero movie. For that alone he has my respect and admiration, but do I believe his trilogy his "unmatched" in the genre? Well in some ways? Yes. In other ways, no.

At the very least, I know within my heart of hearts that The Dark Knight Rises is an awful film. And I say that confidently. Are there good things in it worth talking about? Absolutely. But looking at the big picture and viewing it as a cohesive film? It's pretty bad. Not decent. Bad.

And say what you want about Batman Begins, but whatever originality that movie had going for it in the first half completely fizzles out by the time Bruce appears in the suit. I'm not saying it's good or bad, that's up to you to decide. But from that point on the plot becomes pretty damn silly, and I would argue it was very much "been there done that".

 

[milost]

As much as you'd like to believe this, TDKR is at the same level of BB and TDK when it comes to high quality filmmaking as a rare quality for a CBM.

Not true, when Begins and The Dark Knight aren't even on the same level. They're completely different too.

And I said that TDKR has beautiful cinematography and effects, did I not? That aspect of filmmaking I applauded. The rest? Ehhh, not really. I've seen much better scripts, better acting, better development, etc. all across the board.

TDKR may have some hits and misses, but the general consensus is that all three films are solid filmmaking at its best and together when formed as a trilogy, it has something that is unmatched with any other CBM out there.

"The general consensus", "The general consensus".

I look at these films as they appeared in the context of when they came out and judge them accordingly. That's what we should do, in my opinion. Not take them out of context. Not "EPIC TRILOGY, ULTIMATE EDITION BOXED DVD SETS", where we put them together as a piece of marketing to sell 9 dvds. I'm not going to lump Batman Begins and The Dark Knight with TDKR, just to make the latter look good. One came out in 2005, one came out in 2008, one came out in 2012. That's it. They weren't filmed back to back (like LOTR, Superman, Back to the Future or the Matrix) and each one is visually and structurally different. Not to mention they're years apart. When we were watching Batman Begins, we weren't basing it off of it's sequels. Nor Dark Knight. Why, because they weren't thought up and didn't exist yet. Why should TDKR get that right? Just to make it better?


Batman Begins was thought up by Goyer and developed in a garage with Nolan. It was a humble beginning where they were just trying to tell a nice, meaningful origin story for the character. They succeeded.

It doesn't have the best "filmmaking I have ever seen in a CBM" though. Hardly. It has a solid story (the first two acts or so, but the rest). We've seen better, especially from it's sequel. That third act is pretty terrible too, no doubt. The best shots are from the Himalayas from Bruce climbing up the mountain to training with Ducard. They look great. Structurally, the non-linear approach was fresh too. But, it still had the most CGI I've ever seen in a Batman film for a guy that's so obsessed with practicality. The city is CGI, Batman himself is CGI at some points, even something as simple as the character dropping down. It also has the same honesty to it that Batman 1989 does with it's fantastic model work and it's staged/studio built Gotham City.

There's nothing really "arsty" about it either, nor should there be. It's probably the most comic book of the three in tone alone. The plot, some of the cheesy dialogue (blame Goyer if you want, it's still in there). It's Batman's origin story told brilliantly in a fantastical world inhabited by ninjas. There's nothing really groundbreaking there. That isn't a slight either, it's extremely well done journey/adventure story. It is what it is and I love it.


But I'm not going to make it out to be more than what it really is. That's what most people seem to love to do, make it "something more".


The Dark Knight, well, The Dark Knight is on a whole other level. Nolan and Goyer sat down, knew the sky was the limit and collaborated on a story with Jonathan Nolan working on the screenplay.

It doesn't take the non-linear approach, it doesnt' even have flashbacks. It dives right into a linear story and puts the audience right into the action. It's much more practical, filming right in the heart of Chicago. The visual effects and cinematography, the use of IMAX (before it was a gimmick like 3D). It was fresh, new and exciting. The characters were more complex and better written (save maybe Bruce), it was all completely new. The style was different, the visuals were different, the tone was different.

It's the only one that deserved recognition, and recognition it received. Not only was it the ensemble cast, but you had Heath Ledger as the Joker which was the driving force of the picture. That key element put the film way above anything Begins ever tried to achieve.


If there's one that's filmmaking at it's best, where all the ingredients come together for one of the perfect pictures, it's The Dark Knight.




TDKR on the other hand? The least I say about that the better. I've already gone on rants about how TDKR doesn't live up to what it tried to achieve (bigger and better than it's predecessors). It's bloated and messy, no matter how lovely the movie may look or how well that big, clunky monster was put together.

Its complex storytelling, even going back to the origin film, is much better than the general CBM of the "been there, done that" formula you usually see.

Tell me what's complex about the story telling.

What's the "been there, done that" formula you speak of, because, I gotta tell you, it felt like I saw TDKR and it's crazy, convoluted plot before.

Just because Goyer and Nolan seem to obfuscate a distaste for standard narrative and over-compensates for that by filling there story with all kinds of bloated ideas doesn't make it complex.


I'd say the same thing about Man of Steel.

Hell, even something as simple-minded as a nuclear bomb can be looked at in a metaphorical way of thinking with TDKR.

If you look hard enough for something, you'll end up seeing anything you want.

TDKR alone has the most forced "meanings" from hardcore fans that I've ever seen.

The last two films of Nolan's trilogy, especially deals with real-world problems when it comes to the different classes of a city/community(the poor, the "middlemen", the rich and powerful).

Okay?


The X-Men deal with human rights.

Iron Man deals with war and technology.

Watchmen. Watchmen has so many real-world issues that I don't even know where to begin.


So, uh, what's your point?

Yes, TDKR could have expanded as much as TDK, but that wasn't the point for TDKR. TDK was the film that needed to focus the most on Gotham City because that was TDK's main attraction and main stars, the city.

Says you.

TDKR takes Dark Knight's ending and rolls with it. The lively hood of the city, it's well-being, "structures", "shackles", people rising up, what is seething under the surface . . . but then they just drop the ball.

You SHOULD care and focus on the city when you have a four-mega ton bomb plot device. Or this big, dumb, plot of Bane exposing the "Hawvey Dentt" conspiracy, something that was supposedly HUGE for the city's overall well being.

If they wanted to make a personal Bruce Wayne/Batman story there are thousands of other avenues for it which don't include a cliched villain, with a cliched plot and doomsday device. If they wanted to do that, they'd have gone smaller and more personal, not upping the stakes and focusing on extravaganza with exploding bridges, exploding Steelers, etc.

 

[BlackFox]

ITs been too long since I watched these films. Must have re-watch of the trilogy again soon.

 

[Snow Queen]

Tell me what's complex about the story telling.

http://forums.arkhamverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=19163

 

[Anno_Domini]

^ Yah, pretty much this. And I've seen numerous articles about TDKR. Say what you want about TDKR, but it's purely being biased to say it's not a thought out film. And quite ridiculous for anyone to say it isn't.

Milost, I just can't take time to reply to your long wall of text right now. Nor do I even agree to what you have to say about TDKR, lol.

BUT, I will only bring up the last couple of parts of your post...TDKR WASN'T supposed to be about the city since it's a Bruce Wayne film. TDK, and the reason I say THAT film was meant to focus on the city, because, if anything, it was a Gotham film.

And I did mention Marvel films solely on dealing with elements that doesn't really strike at my heart as Nolan's films, or certain DC films. Watchmen does. V For Vendetta does. I even acknowledged that Iron Man and Spider-Man 2 do as well in regards to Marvel films:

When it comes to The Avengers, it's a nice step above some CBMs, but nothing that film has can stand toe to toe with Iron Man. That film(IM) and Spider-Man 2 come to mind first and foremost when it comes to Marvel films and how it takes this character and wraps him around such a film that means more than what actually could be a regular, same ol' comic book movie.

 

[milost]

http://forums.arkhamverse.com/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=19163

And most of that stuff is based entirely on your own perception. I've read that link, that post three times now. What did I say in my posts above, "These things are only what we're willing to invest ourselves in nothing more, nothing less."

That applies to everything.

A lot of that is reaching and contrived, plain and simple. Anything from the blue flower similarity (which, even today, makes me cringe with it's "cuteness") to something as simple as Batman expressing himself differently in the first fight compared to the second (duh). If I sat down and devoted time to it, I bet I could make a big old post full of digging into, I don't know, Spider-Man 3's "depth", it's complexities and the symbolism and how it relates to the first two films of the series. I'd never do that though because I can't stand that movie and refuse to invest myself in the story it tells. A lot of things have a reason for existing, of course they do, because the filmmakers and story tellers are creating it. That doesn't mean everyone is going to agree or dig that though.

Most of that analysis, I'm sure, was never intended to be taken in the way that you see it. It's all entirely up to the viewer in what they choose to interpret. I bet you see things that Nolan (both of them) and Goyer never even thought of or imagined. I listened to an interview with Johnathan Nolan and he was surprised with what some people were generating from what they saw on screen, things he never even thought of before. He also had this great line that "if you didn't like something it's Goyer and my brother's fault", "if you did, that was all my idea".

They were making great films not sophisticated poetry or some kind of bible. Though, I would say that Christopher Nolan was attempting to make it something "more" with that ridiculous Tale of Two Cities insert that Gordon reads to fit in the context of the film.

That's not genuine and is completely left field and forced in my opinion. Like, "hey look, see what we're doing!". Not just that, but why would a seasoned, rough cop be quoting such a book. Does he read shakespeare too? It would have been better if they wrote Gordon's dialogue coming from a heartfelt speech Gordon made, for his friend, the Batman, not a direct quote from a book.




There's nothing wrong with what you did either, that isn't an insult. You're obviously a young kid that loves the film, you're invested in it, you're watching it repeatedly, you're looking for more and more and like talking about it. That's great, that's fine. You even seem genuinely proud of the post you made. That doesn't mean that it's full of depth and complexity though. Some of that is pure common sense and hardly deep, i.e. the entire paragraph devoted to Catwoman. You even admitted that the character "got the shaft" so to speak. What makes her great, in my mind, is the performance, that catty charm and attitude,something some folks would call superficial (not me). It'scertainly better than some half baked idea of the 99% vs. 1% class stuff that the movie barely touches on. If I start thinking about that, then it starts to take away from her.

There's a reason why everyone was surprised by the lack of attention to it after the way it was being promoted in the trailers, in New York (the stock exchange), the props (that we don't even really see in the movie), it's because it was barely touched on.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It's fine if you find it all out of left field and forced. I don't. I 100% agree with that article and how symbolizing TDKR is as a film.

 

[Snow Queen]

And most of that stuff is based entirely on your own perception. I've read that link, that post three times now. What did I say in my posts above, "These things are only what we're willing to invest ourselves in nothing more, nothing less."

That applies to everything.

And what you see is based entirely on your perception. Everything we see in film, music, painting, it's based on our perception. Some people see a pro-Bush message in TDK, I don't. Some people see 2001: A Space Odyssey as pro-machine and anti-human (seriously, early reviews often said this). Stephen Spielberg said he felt Jack Nicholson was too over the top in The Shining the first time he viewed it.

In the interview where Spielberg talks about how he originally felt about The Shining (he didn't love it), he also talks about a conversation he had with Kubrick regarding how he felt Nicholson was over the top. I don't have the interview on hand so I'm doing this from memory but I feel that it applies to this conversation about perception:

K: "Who are the top 5 actors in your opinion?"
S: "[name I forget], [name I forget], [name I forget], [name I forget] and [name I forget].
K: Where's [name I forget] on your list?"
S: "He's up there somewhere."
K: "But he's not in your top five. He is in mine. That is why I like Jack's performance."

As I said, that's a rough bit of it from memory. But I think that brings up a good point. I'm not trying to hold my opinions as fact but to dismiss points based on it being from my perception doesn't make too much sense when it's your perception that these are invalid.

A lot of that is reaching and contrived, plain and simple. Anything from the blue flower similarity (which, even today, makes me cringe with it's "cuteness") to something as simple as Batman expressing himself differently in the first fight compared to the second (duh). If I sat down and devoted time to it, I bet I could make a big old post full of digging into, I don't know, Spider-Man 3's "depth", it's complexities and the symbolism and how it relates to the first two films of the series. I'd never do that though because I can't stand that movie and refuse to invest myself in the story it tells. A lot of things have a reason for existing, of course they do, because the filmmakers and story tellers are creating it. That doesn't mean everyone is going to agree or dig that though.

Most of that analysis, I'm sure, was never intended to be taken in the way that you see it. It's all entirely up to the viewer in what they choose to interpret. I bet you see things that Nolan (both of them) and Goyer never even thought of or imagined. I listened to an interview with Johnathan Nolan and he was surprised with what some people were generating from what they saw on screen, things he never even thought of before. He also had this great line that "if you didn't like something it's Goyer and my brother's fault", "if you did, that was all my idea".

You call it contrived. Would you mind refuting some of my points to show why? You bring up those two points but you don't really say anything on them, just your perception that the flower part makes you cringe and that the paralleling shots are obvious. I never said that they weren't but to not bring them up I felt would leave out a well done paralleling visual.

Even if they don't intend that way, what you get out of a film (or music or painting or any form of art) is not just the intention, it's what you see on film. And what I wrote is what I see and feel. Obviously, you do not. And that's fair. I'm not going to claim that my points are fact, they are what I got out of the film. You got more out of Avengers than I did. That's your perception, this is mine.

And I will reply to the rest in a bit, something just came up and I have to leave.

 

[milost]

But you called them complexities? Didn't you? That's what you quoted out of my post anyway. My post was in response to that and I simply stated that I don't agree. Or would you have me rip apart your nice, thoughtful post about what I don't agree with and make myself look like a huge dick?

And that last part you posted is something I agree with 100%. I state that in the end of the post. It's cool that you feel that way, you dig the movie, others don't. I stated that. I absolutely agree that film is interpretation and perception.

That's the basis of my post. What's convoluted and lame in my mind regarding TDKR, is brilliant and something you sympathize with in yours. That's why you're a TDKR fan and I'm not. You ENJOY it. I never said you were wrong, I just stated I don't agree with it and don't have those same feelings or see those aspects (and if I do, I certainly don't think they're brilliant). Same thing with Avengers, or Dark Knight, or The Shining, or any film out there.

What do you want me to state when you post that link full of your own thoughts? I mean,


"I'm not trying to hold my opinions as fact but to dismiss points based on it being from my perception doesn't make too much sense when it's your perception that these are invalid."


What do you want me to say when you post a link to that?


Anno and me play this "in my opinion" game all the time. I think it's self-explanatory that we're all just posting away about how we feel at this point.