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

[BatLobster]

Yeah, TDK made far more than a "bit of a splash". It was a bonafide pop culture phenomenon, the likes of which had not been seen for the character since Batman '89. It infiltrated pop music (Pink and Eminem are two artists that come to mind that referenced TDK in their music post 2008), TV (The Office, Community, South Park, 30 Rock all have riffed on TDK in one way or another), standup comedy routines (Aziz Ansari, Dane Cook). It's a seminal film for a lot of people.

Regwec, I know that there's an understated quality that goes along with the eloquent style you bring to your posts, but in this case I'd have to say that was going a step too far. TDK was massive and it's pop culture influence was pretty pervasive. And TDKR is no slouch either...heck, the other day I caught a Bane reference in the trailer for the new Jason Sudeikis/Jennifer Aniston comedy We're the Millers.

You could say all these things are referencing the Batman movies in an attempt to be hip, and that's probably true, but these are ways we can gauge how well something has caught on in the mainstream.

 

[Deserana]

Yeah TDK was huge. I saw references in lots of things after it came out and still the odd bit still now.

 

[Travesty]

You guys are really twisting a throwaway phrase that Reg said, and really trying to run with it.

 

[BatLobster]

That's the point though...he used a throwaway phrase as the bulk of his argument in that post.

 

[Travesty]

That's the point though...he used a throwaway phrase as the bulk of his argument in that post.

Yeah, but he was far from using it to undermine the success of TDK(it seems to be quite the opposite, actually), while you guys seem to be taken aback by it, cause he didn't go as far to say something to the effect of "Other than TDK, which was so mindbogglingly popular, that it couldn't even make a splash, cause it evaporated all water around it due to its immense amount of awesomeness that perpetuated audiences perceptions everywhere".

Heh, I mean, his whole point was to say that TDK was the most popular, yet, you guys aren't even fine with that, unless he's slobbering over all of its merits.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, but he was far from using it to undermine the success of TDK(it seems to be quite the opposite, actually), while you guys seem to be taken aback by it, cause he didn't go as far to say something to the effect of "Other than TDK, which was so mindbogglingly popular, that it couldn't even make a splash, cause it evaporated all water around it due to its immense amount of awesomeness that perpetuated audiences perceptions everywhere".

Heh, I mean, his whole point was to say that TDK was the most popular, yet, you guys aren't even fine with that, unless he's slobbering over all of its merits.

Damn straight.

No seriously though, I apologize to everyone here if that was getting too much into semantics. This thread has gotten a bit wacky since that meme was posted yesterday and I've been a participant in that. I've got more I could say to clarify my stance on this whole matter, but for now I'm going to take five and "CHILLLL" for a moment.

 

[Kane52630]

Chill is usually the best option.

 

[Travesty]

Chill is usually the best option.

[YT]6yAfajTt9x8[/YT]

 

[The Joker]

Chill is usually the best option.

You get back to your monkey work!

 

[Kane52630]

You get back to your monkey work!

MONKEY WORK

 

[NoMansLandEnt]

the last act ruined it for me

 

[regwec]

I don't understand the willful misinterpretation of "a bit of a splash". Perhaps it's a dialectical difference, but where I come from, it would usually be taken to be descriptive of a minor sensation. Please remember that I have no interest or agenda in undermining TDK; I often say that it is the best comicbook movie ever made. Nevertheless, I find some exorbitant claims made of the broader impact of the trilogy to be somewhat doubtful. We have to retain some perspective: this wasn't Star Wars. It wasn't even 'Jurassic Park' or 'Terminator 2', and it certainly wasn't 'Titanic'. Even in the context of Batman movies, the 1989 movie probably caused more of a sensation for being something new.

I sense that I am losing some people because I am trying to respond in isolation to what I construe to be an abridged core of this discussion, but the point I am trying to make is that elevating Nolan as some kind of saviour of Batman- or even movie Batman- might be wishful thinking. This is partly because it requires the unlikely assumption that people that might have seen and enjoyed B89/BR or even BF then, having seen B&R, for some reason decided that Batman was a joke and that Batman movies couldn't be good. I don't find that likely. Batman is such an icon, particularly in the US, that it seems to me that a sense of what Batman is has enough traction in the popular psyche to survive any number of crappy movie adaptations.

After all, if there was no demand for a good Batman movie after the debacle of B&R, then BB would not have got its funding.

I don't deny Nolan's achievement, which for me was making two and two-thirds good Batman movies. I only ask that some kind of perspective be retained. Some of the claims made on behalf of this trilogy would delight WB execs, but might surprise or baffle others.

Haha I'm not offended. But it's clear that in that prior discussion you didn't really have an answer for the question I posed. Same thing here - your misrepresentations were debunked and you conveniently ignored it. Now you've derailed into another deflection laced with not so passive aggression to avoid sticking to the discussion at hand.

You say the linked argument isn't cogent or persuasive yet can't provide reasons why. But the discussion was interesting enough to you before that to warrant a multiple posts by you (contradiction). Trying to discredit someone because their posts are "long" is another weak tactic. The length of those posts is necessitated to counter the arguments they address. But of course it's easy to ignore them when they don't agree with your opinions.

Fella, I have no interest in whether you agree with my opinions. You are welcome to spend as much time as you like making a forensic examination of my posts and trying to devise some kind of thesis for the reasons I have skipped over some of your posts. You may believe that you are engaged in some kind of epic "flame war" with your arch nemesis, but I am simply not interested. I have had variations of this discussion dozens of times with posters who I know and respect. I am not going to rehearse all of those arguments again for your benefit; if you are genuinely interested in them, then by all means continue your meticulous examination of my post history.

 

[BatLobster]

This is partly because it requires the unlikely assumption that people that might have seen and enjoyed B89/BR or even BF then, having seen B&R, for some reason decided that Batman was a joke and that Batman movies couldn't be good. I don't find that likely. Batman is such an icon, particularly in the US, that it seems to me that a sense of what Batman is has enough traction in the popular psyche to survive any number of crappy movie adaptations.

Speaking as an American, I'm telling you...that was exactly the case. You may not believe it, but you must realize that there are quite a few people here with short attention spans and bad long term memories. You're only as good as your last outing, and there's always something newer and cooler. It's not that Batman as a character was a joke...people just thought live action Batman movies were a lost cause/jumped the shark. Faith was lost in the people behind the movies, not the character itself. Because once the backlash for B&R hit, Forever quickly got thrown under the bus too. The franchise had been derailed, and this was before the big comic book movie boom and before BB basically forged the concept of the cinematic reboot. It was hard to imagine how the continuity could turn back towards something closer to the Tim Burton sensibility (at the time, the public's only conception of a good/darker Batman film) after the franchise had so deliberately veered away from that into camp. On top of that, by the time BB was announced the Spider-Man movies were ruling the box office and Spider-Man had become the most popular superhero in the world for a hot minute. Some people saw BB as some cynical attempt to get in on the superhero craze and that there was no need for a new Batman movie when we had Spider-Man. Ah, of course this was still the infancy of the comic book movie boom.

My point is not to say that Batman would have stayed dead if it weren't for Nolan. Someone would've eventually come along and done something cool with the character. The studio heads themselves knew they had to reinvent the character, they just didn't know how. Nolan was the guy who walked through the door at the right time, with the right idea. I simply choose to celebrate that rather than minimize it. It's also important to remember that BB was basically a modest sleeper success, while its two predecessors grossed over $1 billion each. TDK may be the most popular film of the trilogy (although not the highest grossing WW), but if it were released in 2005 it wouldn't have been nearly as successful. The franchise needed to shake off the cobwebs first.

Just because ultimately Batman can survive anything doesn't mean damage can't be done along the way, with some peaks and valleys in terms of popularity. And B&R certainly did some damage, though it may have all been for the best.

 

[georgec]

Fella, I have no interest in whether you agree with my opinions. You are welcome to spend as much time as you like making a forensic examination of my posts and trying to devise some kind of thesis for the reasons I have skipped over some of your posts. You may believe that you are engaged in some kind of epic "flame war" with your arch nemesis, but I am simply not interested. I have had variations of this discussion dozens of times with posters who I know and respect. I am not going to rehearse all of those arguments again for your benefit; if you are genuinely interested in them, then by all means continue your meticulous examination of my post history.

You mean referencing two posts from the last day or two? Yes, that's some meticulous digging (and quite a stretch of the imagination).

Really, the only person making this needlessly convoluted (and lacing posts with lame insults) is you. Don't worry, my feelings aren't hurt nor do I view this as your 'epic flame war'. All that effort to avoid having an actual discussion - you'd think someone doesn't have anything constructive to contribute.

....

Snipping out some parts for length but keeping the points I think are most important:

It's not that Batman as a character was a joke...people just thought live action Batman movies were a lost cause/jumped the shark.
The franchise had been derailed, and this was before the big comic book movie boom and before BB basically forged the concept of the cinematic reboot.
On top of that, by the time BB was announced the Spider-Man movies were ruling the box office and Spider-Man had become the most popular superhero in the world for a hot minute.

I mentioned this before - BB had a good box office haul ($200 million) but it gained significant more numbers of fans on DVD. These were probably people who still weren't too interested in Batman, possibly due to bad aftertaste from B&R or having the cynical outlook you mention. Plus, at the time not many people knew who Bale or Nolan were. But good word of mouth continued to spread through the home video release. I know plenty of people who didn't want to see BB in theaters but they watched it on DVD and became huge fans, carrying that enthusiasm into TDK.

Nolan was the guy who walked through the door at the right time, with the right idea. I simply choose to celebrate that rather than minimize it.

The franchise needed to shake off the cobwebs first.

Yes, the bold part is what caused this discussion. People seem keen to downplay Nolan's role in Batman's 'film redemption' because of their disappointment with TDKR. They forget that not everyone thinks like them, and the majority of people who saw TDKR enjoyed it. With those people comprising a significant portion of the general audience, Nolan's trilogy is going to generally be perceived as a very good to great one.

Like it or not Nolan's trilogy made people who weren't too interested in Batman actually care about him. He focused the trilogy on Bruce's personal arc, giving audiences a better emotional connection to the main character. This was the most important aspect of his movies - making people care not just about Batman himself, but about Bruce. Amidst the campy silliness of the two preceding films, they simply lacked that emotional pull. After Marvel's first couple movies, people had an idea of what to expect from this new generation of comic book movies - better connections to main characters. And BB delivered in that regard.

 

[Tequilla]

I thank Nolan because , even has a young guy , watching Returns in a movie theater left my with a sour taste. Yes it was a good movie , which i enjoyed very much...but it had nothing to do with the mental image i created regarding the character and how i would like to see it translated in a movie screen. He brought a sense practicability that i've always found one of the most fascinating aspects of Batman. I remember watching TDK and think that was the sort of approach i've always wanted to see someone take the character. Bring his best qualities and adapt it in a extremely practical way.

Now looking back at the trilogy , i thank him for the credibility and quality he brought to the genre. It was rare then , and it looks to become even rarer , in a genre that is starting to become decrepit , and lacking any sort of quality , outisde of the technical pyrotechnic.

Even if Batman gets completely raped by hollywood in the next few years...i'll always have the Dark Knight Trilogy. That's his biggest legacy to me.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I don't understand the willful misinterpretation of "a bit of a splash". Perhaps it's a dialectical difference, but where I come from, it would usually be taken to be descriptive of a minor sensation. Please remember that I have no interest or agenda in undermining TDK; I often say that it is the best comicbook movie ever made. Nevertheless, I find some exorbitant claims made of the broader impact of the trilogy to be somewhat doubtful. We have to retain some perspective: this wasn't Star Wars. It wasn't even 'Jurassic Park' or 'Terminator 2', and it certainly wasn't 'Titanic'. Even in the context of Batman movies, the 1989 movie probably caused more of a sensation for being something new.

I sense that I am losing some people because I am trying to respond in isolation to what I construe to be an abridged core of this discussion, but the point I am trying to make is that elevating Nolan as some kind of saviour of Batman- or even movie Batman- might be wishful thinking. This is partly because it requires the unlikely assumption that people that might have seen and enjoyed B89/BR or even BF then, having seen B&R, for some reason decided that Batman was a joke and that Batman movies couldn't be good. I don't find that likely. Batman is such an icon, particularly in the US, that it seems to me that a sense of what Batman is has enough traction in the popular psyche to survive any number of crappy movie adaptations.

After all, if there was no demand for a good Batman movie after the debacle of B&R, then BB would not have got its funding.

Yes indeed. That is a good summary of things.

I think sometimes people on these boards rely too much on localized phenomenology and not on the big picture - the fact that Batman has been saturated in the public consciousness, the fact that an entire generation grew up on the dark and critically acclaimed BTAS before Begins was released, the fact that Batman has remained a popular character and an enduring cultural icon, the fact that the Burton movies were dark and therefore audiences knew there were multiple interpretations of Batman... etc.

 

[georgec]

Even if Batman gets completely raped by hollywood in the next few years...

Erm, let's hope that doesn't happen. It didn't end well for the last guy.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm sorry, but it's denial to think that because of the good will earned by the Burton films and BTAS, that B&R generated no negative energy. Or even if you don't want to say negative energy, it certainly didn't generate positive energy or build any momentum for the cinematic incarnation of the character. People understood that Batman was different in each medium the same way they understood that there were different interpretations of the character. Batman TV was one thing, Batman movies were another.

I mean, it's a well known fact that Superman as a film franchise was broken for a very, very long time. That doesn't undermine the fact that Superman remained a cultural icon in those years. But in terms of film, it was very broken and the studio had no idea what to do with him. Even the most adamant Superman fans would happily attest to that. The same can be said for Batman for the '97-'05 period.

I don't see what the problem is here in just acknowledging the facts: the Batman film franchise was in a bad state after Batman & Robin. Fans like us craved a return to the dark and serious cinematic Batman during the hiatus, while the general public moved onto other things after B&R left a sour taste in their mouths.

 

[bilbo baggins]

Erm, let's hope that doesn't happen. It didn't end well for the last guy.

this is way to funny! i found the deliverence one really disturbing, :SQEUAL FOR ME BOY! SQUEAL!!!

 

[ThePhantasm]

The Batman franchise had hit a low point, but it wasn't in desperate need of some sort of salvation. It could pick itself back up just fine.

Batman is more popular than Superman, and has remained so even after the Schumacher films.

 

[regwec]

I don't see what the problem is here in just acknowledging the facts: the Batman film franchise was in a bad state after Batman & Robin. Fans like us craved a return to the dark and serious cinematic Batman during the hiatus, while the general public moved onto other things after B&R left a sour taste in their mouths.

Sure, but that's just a reflection of the fact that the "general public" just move on anyway. I referred to that a while ago. This "general audience" doesn't have the same investment in the characters that we do. They will pay to see a Batman movie when it is good, and skip it when it isn't. I'm not sure that the "general audience" haven't now "moved onto other things", despite the Nolan trilogy being good. Most people take movies as they come.

On another note, I'm interested by the earlier reference to the success of Spiderman films as a marker of some kind of affront to Batman's reputation as a movie property. I don't follow that logic, when I put myself in the boots of a member of this "general audience". It seems more like a contest for bragging rights between DC and Marvel fans.

 

[ThePhantasm]

And "moving on" doesn't indicate a negative disposition toward the character. It just indicates a measure of ambivalence until he returns to the spotlight.

And the GA can support more than one superhero at a time. They love both Batman and Spider-Man. Either / or is a false dichotomy.

 

[regwec]

Indeed, and I venture to guess that a lot of people probably lump them all together, regardless of who actually owns the IP.

 

[BatLobster]

The Batman franchise had hit a low point, but it wasn't in desperate need of some sort of salvation. It could pick itself back up just fine.

The franchise isn't some autonomous entity though. The franchise depends on studio heads being willing to spend big studio dollars on something they feel is a sure thing. The point is before B&R the studio seemed willing to do that indefinitely, treating the Batman franchise like their Bond franchise. After B&R, that came to a screeching halt. It was no longer a sure thing. They didn't want to risk further damaging the property by putting out something that wasn't quality. And for that matter, where were all the good, established filmmakers chomping at the bit to deliver that kind of Batman movie? We had Wolfgang Petersen and Aronofsky. Petersen's Batman vs. Superman project fell apart, and Aronofsky/Miller squandered their opportunity by writing something R-rated an unmarketable (apparently at the studio's request).

The point is, yes, eventually Batman would've rebounded but it took a while, and it took years of trial and error before WB stumbled upon a winning combination. It was a different time then. Not everything attached to a comic book property got an automatic greenlight. And even Batman Begins was probably considered a risk.

As far as the Spider-Man/Batman thing goes...look, that's just an attitude I remember some people having at the time. There wasn't this insatiable urge for an abundance of superheores on screen like there is now. Spider-Man had captured the public's heart, and Batman seemed old hat to some people. A lot of people didn't see the need to revisit Batman. They needed to be convinced again, and luckily they were.

 

[regwec]

Isn't that more to do with Batman being a bankable IP entity that WB owned, and would want to get a return on, seeing how well Spiderman had fared with a proper director?

I hate to give the international media conglomerate any credit when the director did a great job, but I don't see that giving Batman another crack was a particularly difficult decision, or one for which Nolan himself can gain credit.

Let me stress again that I think Nolan made a good fist of the most enviable job in the world, and I'm not seeking to undermine his direction here.