The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 148

[Kane52630]

I still wish they used Andrea Beaumont instead.

 

[BatLobster]

I don't really see the point of using her unless she ended up becoming The Phantasm, which is really an entirely different direction for the whole trilogy.

 

[Kane52630]

A much better direction.

 

[BatLobster]

Nah, no way man. It'd be pretty lazy to just rip off MOTP as the central arc of the trilogy....cause face it, it'd have to be.

I think the only way it could've worked would be if they just eliminated Dent's character entirely, made Andrea the DA and then let her Phantasm arc play out. But I much preferred getting to see Dent's arc and Two-Face, which is a much more essential and classic part of the Batman mythos as a whole.

 

[shauner111]

They honestly should have used Andrea Beaumont or taken more influence from that character, and had Amy Adams play her. Since she has so much chemistry with Bale and was there for his screentests.

I just watched a good chunk of Batman Begins and as much as i think that movie is the greatest origin story ever told for ANY superhero...it is flawed. Im going to get major hate for this, but i disagree with the people who feel like Begins and Knight are masterpieces and Rises is the flawed one. I actually think it's the two Dark Knight movies that are the strongest and Begins is the flawed one of the trilogy.

I really love the movie. I dig the whole thing. Always have. But Act 1 makes Act 2 & 3 look bad. I think some of the best Batman moments happen in the last half, yes. But i believe that all origin films get stuck in a formula. It's as if the studio makes a list. We need a female love-interest for our hero even in the first movie, we need to sell toys so we need a guaranteed batmobile chase, we need a freaky villain for Batman to face.

Of course i love that batmobile chase but i dont think a lot of it was necessary. As Begins progresses, it gets more fantastical. It gets more comic booky. The tone shifts from the first act.

The strongest element to Begins was the set-up. The final scene is perfection. The turn from Ducard to Ras Al Ghul in Wayne Manor is perfection. But i agree with one of the reviews i saw who said they should have taken Act 1 (the great training montage for example) and stretched it out, making entire scenes out of it.

The film could have included Rachel as more of Andrea character or maybe she didn't need to be in it so much. But as awesome as Begins is...i think a 2 hour movie that got even grittier and unusual would have matched up with The Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises better. Im talking tone.

I still think it's a better story than Batman 89'. But it's still an origin film and they get formulaic sometimes. As a fan, we can call out the main beats and be able to tell you how it's going to develop. Which is why an established Batman movie is so much more exciting. As is for Spider-Man or Superman. Anything can happen.

If i had to change anything, it wouldnt be Rises, as i think it's better than Begins by a long shot.

 

[BatLobster]

One of the reasons I really love Rises, in particular all the stuff in the Pit, is I felt like I was finally getting the followup to that glorious first hour of Begins. It came back around to that epic tone of a soul-searching quest on the other side of the world. Really rounded off the trilogy well in that regard.

But yeah, I think it's endemic of origin films to feel like one movie in the first half and a different movie in the second. I was just watching The Amazing Spider-Man, and it's the same thing...which is the same as the original Spider-Man, and so on. And once the story becomes more action oriented it's usually harder for the plot to stay as interesting and engaging.

I'll give Begins credit though, it does weave somewhat of a mystery into it's second act where Batman is trying to take out the mob, which leads to Scarecrow's plot, which leads to the "bigger fish". Even though it's pretty obvious who the mastermind is, it's still structured pretty well and definitely more well-thought out than your average CBM.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, even Man Of Steel. I mean, with the Krypton stuff aside in the first 20 minutes, it's the same thing. If you act like that's a seperate prologue of sorts and start the film from the boat when they introduce Clark. It's as if the first half is a journey story then the last half we're in some alien invasion, comic booky plot.

Im personally growing tired of "the origin story". It's way too formulaic for my tastes. Of course Nolan was giving people the first ever detailed origin story for Batman so it was fresh as hell when it came out. They tied Scarecrow in there well and Murphy was awesome in the role but i still feel like it was added in later by a studio suggestion. Which Goyer probably took as a challenge to find the right villain. Im thinking WB might have even suggested Scarecrow because he was supposed to be the main villain in Batman #5. Just like Katie Holmes was most likely a studio suggestion. I doubt Nolan's pitch to Warner's folks had to do with anything but the setup. The childhood flashbacks, the training across the world, the creation of the materials, the serious tone and what Bruce feels inside. It sound to me like he pitched the first act of the movie then started building layers with Goyer to make it more of a comic book movie. Hence the batmobile chases and fear gas/microwave emitter plot. Ras Al Ghul/Ducard fits in live a glove with that first act but Scarecrow seems like an addition to give Batman somebody to go after instead of common criminals (probably boring to the studio).

Just like Amazing Spider-Man and Raimi's origin where i feel they could have left out Lizard/Green Goblin. Just doing a film where Peter becomes who he is and it's stretched out. He takes down muggers, he develops a crush on Gwen/MJ, he meets Conners or the Osborns and there's your movie. But it's the movie business. It's a different medium as i like to preach. So the heads will force the filmmakers to have certain elements for entertainment value.

It works for Begins don't get me wrong. Id probably freak out if i woke up and a good chunk of act 2 & 3 of Begins had just vanished. Because im so familiar with it now. But i strongly believe it could have been a more concise, to the point, grittier, odd film that deals with his childhood, college years. Heck even teenage years which weren't explored. The time spent in prison and training with the league of shadows would be extended quite a bit. We'd still see Rachel but limited. Still see the creation of his suit and batmobile but more mystery with that vehicle. The Batman moments could have been him taking down the mob like we see but also going after random criminals like how they do it with Spider-Man.

I like the train sequence but the whole "Gotham is in trouble" plot could have been changed to something more intimate. Leaving Rises to be the big disaster film that centers around a device, which fits more because of the scope of that particular story.

Hey, im content but i guess i don't get the "Batman Begins is the best batman movie of all time and ****s all over Rises". Some of these people even think it's better than Knight. I understand the charm, but i just dont get that point of view. That first 40 minutes to an hour is about the only thing that's relevant to the rest of the trilogy. I bet it's because Nolan knew it was the most powerful stuff.

I even heard about Goyer saying something about Gotham's look in BB. How they would have changed it and it was the studios idea to make it more extreme. I still haven't seen that source though.

 

[BatmanBeyond]

I don't really see the point of using her unless she ended up becoming The Phantasm, which is really an entirely different direction for the whole trilogy.

Rachel was a pretty good character anyway. The only thing I'd have done different is have Rebecca Hall play her instead in both BB and TDK.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, I think Scarecrow's inclusion was definitely a leftover from "Batman Triumphant" and the fact that they didn't want to repeat any villains from the previous movies. It might've been a studio note, but it ended up being pretty serendipitous that fear and manipulating fear was a big theme of the movie which makes Scarecrow kind of a no-brainer to include in some form.

Kind of ironic that he ended up becoming the one villain to make appearances throughout all three movies too, which is a record for any Batman villain.

I mean, I agree with you though shauner...I think Scarecrow could've been swapped with a more regular thug without effecting the story much. But I do think having a "name" villain in there helped fool the audience into thinking he was the big bad of the movie which helped keep people's eye off the ball with the Ra's twist. Come to think of it, when I think back to '05 I'm pretty sure I thought Scarecrow was the main villain too even though I was following the movie (I didn't read the script leak though).

Rachel was a pretty good character anyway. The only thing I'd have done different is have Rebecca Hall play her instead in both BB and TDK.

Rebecca Hall would've been great.

 

[Shikamaru]

Rachel was ok. The biggest problem with Rachel was that she was more of an idea and less of an actual character. Her only existing purpose was to show that Bruce can't be Batman and also have a normal life. Once that message got across, there was no more need for her. That's why they killed her off in TDK.

 

[JackWhite]

BB Act II >>>>> TDKR Act II

What's with the lack of love for BB second act? So many great moments, so many great Batman moments - Docks, Flass interrogation, Bruce creating the playboy facade. Even though I like TDKR, watching that film made me appreciate just how great BB was, hell still is.

 

[DyeLorean]

Also, Gotham in Batman Begins was much more interesting, visually, tonally. Later it became just a regular city.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Gotham just became Generic Big City USA in the sequels. The biggest connection in terms of visual identity comes at some of the night scenes.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, I don't think Rachel was any more or less of an "idea" than Dent was, or a lot of the supporting characters are in these movies actually.
Plus she did end up serving a bunch of plot functions in the end, not just one.

-Romantic interest/goal for Bruce
-Moral compass for Bruce
-Assistant DA, so organically part of the main plots in both BB and TDK
-Romantic interest for Dent
-Source of tension between Dent/Bruce
-Source of turmoil for Dent/Bruce (in death)

I think having one actress portray her twice could've helped create a more detailed and defined characterization, but I have no problem with her being a part of the trilogy as I think she was a crucial player in the overall story.

 

[JackWhite]

Also, Gotham in Batman Begins was much more interesting, visually, tonally. Later it became just a regular city.

My favorite Gotham is actually TDKR. I think it was a nice blend of TDK and BB Gotham.

 

[georgec]

BB Gotham was mostly the Narrows. I love how TDK and TDKR opened it up and made it feel like a sprawling metropolis.

 

[BatLobster]

Same. That shot you see of Gotham from the plane in BB sets it up as a sprawling metropolis, but it didn't actually feel that way until TDK and TDKR made it feel bigger and bigger.

But The Narrows was a nice touch for the 'moody' Gotham that you tend to expect.

Schumacher's Gotham beats them all though.

 

[kvz5]

TDKR has been playing recently on HBO and I just had to comment that the whole sequence starting from Batman coming back all the way to his chat with Catwoman on the rooftop right after he saved her is just pure gold. LOOOOVE everything about those scenes.

BB Act II >>>>> TDKR Act II

Co-signed. I'm just not a fan of TDKR's middle part. The only thing I liked there were the prison scenes.

They honestly should have used Andrea Beaumont or taken more influence from that character, and had Amy Adams play her. Since she has so much chemistry with Bale and was there for his screentests.

After watching AH, my friend commented that she had waaayyyy more chemistry with "fat Batman" rather than "ripped Superman". It's kind of blessing that Bale is not the Batman in the MOS sequel because it will be so awkward if she and Bale have more chemistry than their romantic counterparts.

I wish I remember who it was but someone had a good example on how the Nolanverse could've incorporated Beaumont throughout the trilogy.

 

[milost]

Same. That shot you see of Gotham from the plane in BB sets it up as a sprawling metropolis, but it didn't actually feel that way until TDK and TDKR made it feel bigger and bigger.

But The Narrows was a nice touch for the 'moody' Gotham that you tend to expect.

And some good old fashioned graffiti, dirt and grime. Not to mention city rain with iconic shots of Batman in it.

Each film's city had a particular look that separated them from the others. They were almost like different cities completely. I loved how it looked in Begins, specifically that scene where Wayne is in that hat/hoody disguise outside the courthouse, watching Rachel and Finch by the phone. That grimy, claustrophobic feel really reminded me of Anton Furst's '89 Batman Gotham. I also liked all the shops and weird denizens that were walking around that are non-existent in Dark Knight and TDKR. Who can forget falafel guy! It was like a different world. I know people gripe about it being a "studio built set", but I find that very admirable. Any time you're building something out of nothing, especially places like the Burton Gothams or Arkham and the Narrows, that should always be commended. People seem to forget about the artisans that put time and work into it and are too quick to write off that specific, visual look as "fake". The only thing I don't like about Begins' Gotham is that horrible CGI look it has during skyline shots. It looked like at some points they just plopped in this brown, crappy looking city into the actual location and it's obvious as hell. It's REALLY bad when the Narrows gets gassed.

Being from Chicago though, I was really saddened to see them drop the location completely after Dark Knight. Everything from the accents, to the locales, to the actor that played Wuertz (a native) just screamed Chicago. It was very much "Gotham" until TDKR came along.

 

[BatLobster]

Oh yeah, the fact that they built The Narrows in the hangar is great. Same reason I really appreciate Bane's underground layer and the prison pit in Rises. It definitely adds something to a film's production value when you add a location (without CG) that simply does not exist in the real world. I'm pretty sure those weird looking skyline shots of The Narrows in BB are miniatures.

Being from New York, I was happy to see the city incorporated for the first time in a Batman film. I guess if you grow up in a city, you tend to bring some location bias with you if you're reading a Batman comic growing up, imagining that it can be happening in your city (which is kind of why I dig the idea of Gotham being Any Big City, USA). Plus, I got to see a bunch of filming for TDKR which was a blast. Pittsburgh has a great look for Gotham too, although I don't think they fully utilized it in the film.

 

[DyeLorean]

TDKR's Gotham felt different and perhaps interesting because of the snow. Kudos for that.

 

[Shikamaru]

This might sound weird, but I thought Gotham looked too much like Toronto during certain daytime scenes in TDK. Visually speaking, Toronto doesn't look too different from Chicago. It's just a bit cleaner and with more of a "blue" tone instead of "brown". TDK took the brown Chicago look from BB, cleaned it up a bit and added a blue tone to it. Maybe it's just me, but I had a really weird experience on my first viewing due to that - not a bad experience, just a weird one.

The opening scene in particular is what gave me that feeling the most. I thought it looked very similar to a place downtown and I was watching the film downtown.

As for my personal favorite look for Gotham, it would be NYC. More specifically, the "dirtier" parts of NYC as opposed to the "bright" places like Times Square. I think Dennis O'Neil said it best: "Gotham is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at 3 AM on the coldest night of November." I thought Chicago worked just fine as a setting, but I would have personally incorporated more of the Dennis O'Neil approach.

Honestly, I don't think Rachel was any more or less of an "idea" than Dent was, or a lot of the supporting characters are in these movies actually.
Plus she did end up serving a bunch of plot functions in the end, not just one.

-Romantic interest/goal for Bruce
-Moral compass for Bruce
-Assistant DA, so organically part of the main plots in both BB and TDK
-Romantic interest for Dent
-Source of tension between Dent/Bruce
-Source of turmoil for Dent/Bruce (in death)

I think having one actress portray her twice could've helped create a more detailed and defined characterization, but I have no problem with her being a part of the trilogy as I think she was a crucial player in the overall story.

It's not that she wasn't important to the plot; it's that her character never felt as three-dimensional as the rest of the crew. I felt like she could have been any love interest.

Also, Nolan isn't too good with female characters IMO. He's not exactly horrible with them, but they never feel important to the plot even when they are.

 

[BatLobster]

It's not that she wasn't important to the plot; it's that her character never felt as three-dimensional as the rest of the crew. I felt like she could have been any love interest.

Also, Nolan isn't too good with female characters IMO. He's not exactly horrible with them, but they never feel important to the plot even when they are.

I know what you mean. I think he's hit and miss with his female characters. He definitely seems to excel with femme fatales more than "regular" female characters.

I'm curious to see what he'll do with Jessica Chastain and Anne Hathaway in Interstellar...two incredible actresses at his disposal in a sci-fi setting could be interesting.

 

[Shikamaru]

I know what you mean. I think he's hit and miss with his female characters. He definitely seems to excel with femme fatales more than "regular" female characters.

I'm curious to see what he'll do with Jessica Chastain and Anne Hathaway in Interstellar...two incredible actresses at his disposal in a sci-fi setting could be interesting.

I'm curious as well. I'm curious in Interstellar in general. Nolan hasn't done any sci-fi yet, or at least not the Star Trek type of sci-fi (which is what Interstellar sounds like).

 

[Tumbler_Fan]

New to this site but thought I would upload an image of a recent illustration I have produced of Christopher Nolans Batmobile 'The Tumbler'. I am a Technical Illustrator by trade, so is nice to do something a little different. As fans of the yourselves, I thought you might appreciate something a bit different. Let me know what you think

Chris