The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 147

[milost]

milost, I think you're confusing what people want to think with people's assessments of what was intended with the films.

Well, when I see "they take place in the same universe", what am I supposed to think, ya know? I guess I'll settle for a really loose, "soft reboot" and a semi sequel instead of direct. They're still three different visions/interpretations as far as I'm concerned, they're just too jarringly different.



We're on the same page though Lobster. No worries. My only point in here is, there isn't a "reality" or "world" in any of these films outside of it being a film production. Like you said, even Batman and Batman Returns feel worlds apart with different objectives and those are technically made by the same guy. Same deal with Begins vs. it's two older brothers. Begins feels like an actual comic book blockbuster that delves into the journey of a character. There isn't a prologue, the cities look different, the canon is off (Toddler Jimmy Gordon, Studio built chicago), no flash forward montage ending with pounding Zimmer score, etc.

There are different ideas and processes going into these things in 1988, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2003, 2007, 2011, etc. Personally, when I view them, more times than not I view them as a single entity, even movies that are clearly part of the same series.

 

[Shikamaru]

I have to mention that one of the strong points of the Nolan trilogy was that they all felt as if they took place in the same universe. In the previous franchise, each one of the four Batman films felt as if they took place in separate universes to me. As a kid, I remember even being confused as to whether or not they were in the same continuity.

 

[Marvolo]

I always thought Batman 89 and Batman Returns took place in the same universe. With Schumacher's films I just didn't even think about it. They were like the red headed step cousin.

 

[milost]

I have to mention that one of the strong points of the Nolan trilogy was that they all felt as if they took place in the same universe. In the previous franchise, each one of the four Batman films felt as if they took place in separate universes to me. As a kid, I remember even being confused as to whether or not they were in the same continuity.

I agree, but I actually think the Nolan films feel the same way.


Begins looks and feels different from Dark Knight and TDKR where it doesn't seem like it's of the same world. Gotham is a CGIed, Chicago and mostly studio built. It has a very unique look to it just as the '89 city did. It's a huge, crafted set. You have the inconsistencies of Rachel not being portrayed by the same actress. Jimmy Gordon being a baby and different looks and locals. It's structure is also completely different with it's non-linear origin story. It also doesn't rely on a prologue of any kind to set up it's villains, doesn't have the IMAX gimmick and has a straight forward ending instead of a flash forward montage.

Dark Knight and Rises are pretty close, but even then the cities and overall look are completely different and you have a huge element like the Joker that set the tone of that is virtually swept away in the sequel. They're closer to each than they are to Begins though (even though TDKR blatantly tries to connect itself to the others with numerous flashbacks and such). Begins almost feels so far removed from that it almost feels like it could have evolved into something else. That could apply to Dark Knight too, depending on how you view the ending compared to what ended up "happening" in TDKR.





As for the future, I actually wouldn't mind if every Batman film from here on out was a standalone story, starting with Batman vs. Superman or whatever they end up calling it. I wouldn't even care if it connected to Man of Steel or not, as long was Cavill was back (I dug him as a modern Supes).

It's just like the comics where the character gets passed around to different writers and artists and the history and look changes. Most of these movies are strong enough where they can stand alone with whatever they're trying to do.


Canon with the Batman films isn't terribly important to me, I view each one as they are. It's not like the Marvel films where they rely on sequential structure to build up their phases. Even then, those aren't 100% perfect. As long as I get to see a compelling 2-3 hour Batman film, I'm good. The "reality" of a series is less important, especially as time goes on.

 

[shauner111]

Batman Returns doesn't feel like it belongs in the same universe as Batman 89. It feels like 3 of the same actors returned, but it exists in a parallel Gotham. All 4 films can be looked at as if theyre separate universes. Or they can be viewed as one giant universe that's loosely connected like the Bond films. I think it's whatever you want it to be. There's no right or wrong.

I don't really think we ever saw a true sequel to Batman 89 though. In the way that Batman Begins went into The Dark Knight and TDK went into Rises. There were shifts with those too but they were subtle. Had more to do with the city look. You can chalk that up to different areas of the city being explored. The narrows to downtown Gotham to...etc. Or the city cleaned up or what not. But Returns truly feels like a different city that's much more fantastical and fairylandish. Also the first Batman had more serious elements than Returns.

It's very easy to separate the Burton movies from the Shumachers though. Because Burton had dark gothic while Joel had light & more colors. Different leading men. 1 has Robin. 1 has no Robin.

 

[BatLobster]

I know what you mean milost, each film in the Nolan series is its own beast and the films each have their own feel and identity. Imo they do form a whole bigger than the sum of their parts, but I know you don't agree with that.

I will say that I do value continuity. But not so much in terms of cosmetic things, but I guess what I'll say is value thematic progression. I like it when actions in one film have repercussions through the next. Even though BB and TDK are radically different films, when you boil it down, TDK is all about how Gotham reacts to the presence of Batman and the escalation he brings, which is exactly the direction BB's epilogue pointed us in. To me that's a very strong bond between films. It's cause and effect, and there's a strong causality chain throughout the three films.

It's also important to remember that there are thematic trilogies out there with extremely loose or zero narrative continuity. Park Chan-wook's Vengeance trilogy or Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy are couple examples that come to mind. Even if you took continuity off the table, I still think The Dark Knight films easily qualify as a thematic trilogy. I'd call it the fear trilogy.

Bottom line milost, while do I agree with you that the 90s Bat-films are all basically one-offs, I do think it's possible in general for a set of films to enrich and contextualize each other in interesting and satisfying ways.

That said, if the Batman franchise ended up going "full Bond mode" I could very easily get into that too. Not everything has to be a trilogy, but I do think trilogies have a lot of inherent potential for good storytelling.

 

[Shikamaru]

I've always been a big continuity and large/expanded universe guy, so I love it whenever I see that being done in fiction. Not everything has to feel the same way in order to achieve that though. The comics constantly vary in tone and feel yet (mostly) everything is still canon (or intended to be canon in the cases where they contradict each other ). Batman TAS technically had its own feel and identity unique from JLU but it was still very much the same continuity and characters.

Part of that is what carried over to the Nolan films as well. Batman Begins has its own distinct tone and feel as does TDK. However, the story from BB to TDK flows in naturally and despite the tone and feels of the films being different, they don't vastly differ to the point that you question how they could possibly be in the same universe. TDKR also has a distinct feel from TDK but at the same time, I also felt it was a bit too close to TDK in that regard, which I guess makes sense since it tries to tie BB and TDK together. I once saw someone describe TDKR as BB if it was shot like TDK and I think there is some truth to that.

In my opinion, one of Nolan's greatest achievements with his Batman films was finding the perfect balance between continuity and great stand-alone films. I find that other CBM's often struggle with that. On one hand, you have CBM's like the Raimi Spider-Man films that are way too stand-alone and episodic to the point that they age the protagonist too fast and don't leave much room for anything that can flow into the sequel. That was part of the reason why Spider-Man 4 fell through. Then on the other hand, you have CBM's like most MCU solo films that spend way too much time setting up for Avengers and future sequels that they just scream of a sequel and cannot be judged alone. For the latter scenario, it usually leads to opinions on the first film being altered down the line due to opinions formed from future films. I hate to say this since I loved The Amazing Spider-Man and Man of Steel but they are guilty of this as well in the same way the MCU films are. They intentionally leave too much for the sequel that my overall opinion of them will be affected by what the sequels do. Nolan's films didn't really have that problem.

Since TDKR is a very controversial film in this thread, I am going to stick only to analyzing Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in the following paragraph in order to keep as many people as possible on the same page.

Both BB and TDK had endings that didn't need sequels. Batman Begins isn't just an origin story; it stands on its own. Had TDK & TDKR not have existed, it still would've been a great conclusion to that Batman. The same thing can be said about TDK's ending. In fact, TDK's ending was so good that one of my biggest fears was that they wouldn't have found any good way to top that ending in future films. BatLobsterRises brought up a great point when he said that regardless of who you are, whether you thought TDKR honored or went against TDK's ending, TDK's ending was an absolutely fantastic ending for all of us. And yet, there was still room for more stories after both BB's ending and TDK's ending. He focused on the movie at hand - "one film at a time" is his motto according to Goyer - and didn't let the future bug him too much to the point where he made movies that would still work well even if they never had sequels. At the same time, he also left little things here and there that have set up things for the future of the franchise (Joker's card at the end of BB, Scarecrow on the loose, the rise of "freaks", Batman on the run, etc.) and never let the time gap in between the movies fast forward too much (excluding the 8 year gap in TDKR). This established a cohesive ongoing continuity out of films that could be looked at almost completely individually. This is how CBM's should be done IMO. Maybe this balance was found intentionally or maybe they just got lucky due to the Nolan franchise being made at the exact time in which CBM's where transitioning from the way-too-stand-alone-with-no-setups style to the more one-episode-of-the-bigger-picture type of style. Either way, they managed to pull it off.

It is interesting how so many fans that claim to have been dissapointed with TDKR also claim to still like BB and TDK just as much as before. Some even say that TDKR was so bad that it made them like the first two a lot more (which I personally think is a bit of a ridiculous stretch). How many people would have felt that way had these films followed the MoS/TASM/MCU route when it came to film continuity which, as I said before, planned too much for the future that it took away from the movie at hand? Imagine if BB and TDK did this and people walked out of TDKR with the same opinions they have now. Of all the people dissapointed with it, how many would have had that dissapointment affect their opinion on the first two films? Would the same people still say that they still like BB/TDK just as much? Would the same people say that they now like BB/TDK more than they did before? That is something to think about. Then again, the same thing can be argued with those that were dissapointed with BB and/or TDK who loved TDKR. Hence average movies like Thor and Iron Man 2 being put on a pedestal due to the quality of The Avengers.

 

[Brain Damage]

I will say that I do value continuity. But not so much in terms of cosmetic things, but I guess what I'll say is value thematic progression. I like it when actions in one film have repercussions through the next. Even though BB and TDK are radically different films, when you boil it down, TDK is all about how Gotham reacts to the presence of Batman and the escalation he brings, which is exactly the direction BB's epilogue pointed us in. To me that's a very strong bond between films. It's cause and effect, and there's a strong causality chain throughout the three films.

 

[shauner111]

I prefer continuity. But stand-alone films can work. I think with this reboot, though, it's going to feel very connected like Nolan's were. Just because it's a shared universe with team-up movies that need to lead into one another. Each solo film will feel very connected to each film. Every batman movie will probably closely tied together. WB will take this route because Nolan's trilogy was this way and it was a great success. Snyder/Goyer obviously love working this way. When talking about a MOS sequel they want to expand on themes instead of treating the new movie like it's a chance to start over again (like Burton in Batman Returns or Shumacher with Batman & Robin, or well...every James Bond movie).

So this reboot will be heavily connected and not very Bond-ish. At least for the next 10 years I don't see that changing.

 

[Victarion]

I know this should probably go in the Future Batman Movies section, but I like discussing stuff with my peeps in here. I'm taking this with a HUGE grain of salt, because it's coming from Harry but supposedly WB still has a Batman movie AND a Justice League movie on their 2015 slate.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/63313

Also, I thought Anne's Selina had a seductive side- she seduced the Senator for her own gain.

Yes; the Senator was leverage for her meeting with Striver.

@Shikamaru: If BB/TDK went overboard with bait for TDKR, and I left TDKR disappointed, I would be disappointed in the trilogy as a whole. It would all feel like a waste of time and performances.

 

[milost]

Speaking of continuity and "universes", how do you all feel about Star Wars?


I've NEVER bought into the idea that what happens in the prequels, actually predated the original trilogy. It's just crazy. I also hated how Lucas went in and changed the original films to fit the prequels better. Shouldn't it have been the other way around? I'm starting to feel the same way with the Hobbit with all of it's inconsistencies with Lord of the Rings (use of CGI orcs/goblins instead of stunt doubles with prosthetic, everything having the CGI look, Martin Freeman vs. Ian Holm Bilbo Riddle in the Dark/Finding of the ring sequences, etc.).



It got me thinking, is there a series of films that has the perfect continuity with zero inconsistencies/flaws other than LOTR? I know the Terminator films are all messed up, as are Robocop, etc.

 

[Snow Queen]

If I remember correctly, Toy Story was pretty consistent.

 

[milost]

If I remember correctly, Toy Story was pretty consistent.

Yeah, Toy Story is a good one.

 

[BatLobster]

Toy Story is a perfect example of taking the "one film at a time" approach, while still ending up with good coherent trilogy at the end of it all.

 

[Green Goblin]

I find that Begins is the most comic book like of all the trilogy and in ways I find it odd how it exists in the same universe as TDK and TDKR. Gotham feels different and we get to see batman and his enemy's become how they are in the comics e.g Gadgets and Fear gas.
TDK removed the gritty Gotham and it looked more like New York than anything. It kept the comic book feel as they didn't dumb Batman down at all.
TDKR was too grounded. Batman barley uses gadgets and uses no "unbelievable" ones like his glider. Bane is without Venom also and Batman without his gadgets just felt like a guy dressed as batman fighting people. I think that the reboot Batman will be quite like Begins, I felt that Begins and MOS could have existed in the same world.

 

[Snow Queen]

Funny, I found TDKR less grounded than TDK.

 

[shauner111]

TDK also didn't explore the narrows and those parts of Gotham.

Rises was less grounded than TDK.

 

[The Joker]

"The Narrows is lost"

There was no Narrows to explore.

 

[milost]

Yeah I agree. The Dark Knight was the most grounded of all of them. There was nothing grounded about Bane, the clean energy orb turned nuclear bomb, etc.

The Dark Knight is the only one with a relatively "simple" third act threat. It's not some crazy MacGuffin device where the whole city is at risk of being annihilated. On one side of the city you have two ferry boats hanging on by a choice, on the other, a hostage situation. Those are much more relatable and real than, "IF THAT MIST REACHES THE MAIN HUB, WE'RE GONNA BLOWWWWWW!" and "Afteh 5 months of rule, dis mobile bowmb will explode".



Each one of them are their own, unique thing. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[BatLobster]

I thought the depiction of the Narrows in the Gotham Knight episode "Crossfire" was pretty interesting, the way Arkham was quarantined off. There was interesting material to explore there if they wanted to, there was just no need for it in the story.

 

[Green Goblin]

Yeah I agree. The Dark Knight was the most grounded of all of them. There was nothing grounded about Bane, the clean energy orb turned nuclear bomb, etc.

He didn't use venom...

 

[BatLobster]

The TDK sonar device was pretty out there too. Though I agree it aims for the most realistic feel of the three. All three dabbled in sci-fi to varying degrees though.

 

[TheBat812]

I'm really sick of people usin the term mcguffin incorrectly on these boards, lol. It's not just any plot device, it's one whose specific nature has little to no consequence to the plot and is never explained. Ie pulp fiction with the briefcase. The bomb/detonator is NOT a mcguffin, and the codex is stretching it in terms of that definition.

 

[Green Goblin]

Do Batman fans this board own the Burton films B89 & BR on DVD as well as TDKT? As a Spider-Man fan I own all 3 Spider-Man films SM1,SM2,TASM.

 

[Snow Queen]

Do Batman fans this board own the Burton films B89 & BR on DVD as well as TDKT? As a Spider-Man fan I own all 3 Spider-Man films SM1,SM2,TASM.

Nope. Not going to buy movies that I don't like.