The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 149

[BatLobster]

I'm not saying there weren't any hammy performances in the first two but I don't think any were as hammy as Modine.

Agree to disagree, I thought Cotilard phoned it in, Katie Holmes wasn't the best but Maggie G was great in the Dark Knight.

Just agree to disagree I think Rises is the worst of the trilogy but still the best third film in a superhero franchise.

I can only agree to disagree cause I thought Eric Roberts was hammier than Modine by a mile. Couple that with his bad accent and you've got yourself a B-movie mobster performance. He would've hammed it up more if Nolan didn't reign him in too, according to Roberts himself.

But anyway, that's kind of something I like about the Nolan trilogy. It has some hamminess and B-movie aspects peppered in, yet the principle actors are so good that they keep it grounded and it still feels like a serious drama. It's a good balance.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I thought Cotillard was good, just her death scene was off and that was just a bad take. I actually really enjoyed Modine and think people exaggerate when they say he was bad. He was a cliche character but i thought he pulled it off. He's a prick, he's annoying. He did just that.

I'm with ya. Rises had better from side characters than the previous 2. People like to say "bad acting" in an all encompassing way just because Talia's death was a little shoddy. One 2 second moment does not ruin the entire performance, nor other performances in the film. I don't see how Modine was hammy at all. His character a cliched dick cop, but he didn't "ham" anything up.

 

[BH/HHH]

The spin punch was fantastic IMO.

Maybe not CG but i also meant that he would probably fill it with music (probably bad metal or some unnecessary Zimmer music).

OMG hahaha. How could anyone say that Rises had bad acting or hammy performances when the first two movies were full of them when it came to the side characters..

Fair enough, although I don't think music us unnecessary in all fight scenes. It adds to the drama.

And people can say it cause its an opinion. Rises as a whole was hammier than the first two.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

So Modine was hammy....and ALL of the mobster characters in BB and TDK weren't? Commissioner Loeb? All the random cops in TDK? The bank manager etc? Please. ("It was Ramirezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz")

Also, I thought Cotillard gave a perfectly good performance. Some of her scenes with Bruce are amongst my favorite Bruce scenes in the trilogy. I love when Bruce is pleading with her to sit on the energy project as she pleads with him to trust the world. Great dramatic stuff. She made her idealism so seductive, as opposed to Rachel's annoying lectures. Both female characters in this film were a step up from Rachel, in general.

It's true the side characters do ham it up a bit. Foley is kind of there to represent the anti-Batman people of the city and the police force early on. What little there seems to be...

Talia is an icy character in general in the comics. Her performance generally matched up with that. If people didn't like the icy portrayal that's fine, they probably wouldn't like the comic book source material anyway.

 

[BH/HHH]

I'm with ya. Rises had better from side characters than the previous 2. People like to say "bad acting" in an all encompassing way just because Talia's death was a little shoddy. One 2 second moment does not ruin the entire performance, nor other performances in the film.

If thats a comment about me then thats not the only reason I thought she was bad. I thought she was flat throughout the whole movie.

 

[Shikamaru]

I thought all Nolan films had horrendously choreographed fight scenes. They're not any better in BB/TDK than in TDKR; they're just hidden better. BB's fight scenes are very edited and consist of shaky cameras, leaving the viewer unclear of what's going on. TDK's fight scenes are a lot more clearly filmed, but are still slightly edited and most of them take place in dark environments. Then in TDKR, the fights take place in much better and more clear lighting plus have even less editing. And this created the myth that Nolan somehow dropped the ball when it comes to choreography, when the ball was always dropped.

It still really boggles my mind to this day how Nolan could do such a poor job with the choreography. It's one of the reasons I like BB's fights the most (minus one or two fights in TDK). They were left more to your interpretation. I also don't understand the complains for the shaky cameras - anyone familiar with the choreography shouldn't complain about them IMO.

Anyone here watch Arrow? Surprisingly, a CW superhero show managed to have better choreographed fight scenes than the whole Nolan trilogy. I am not kidding when I say that. In many ways, it is what Nolan's choreographs should have looked like and the show even follows the grounded Nolan approach.

However, I do think it's really unfair to criticize Nolan's Batman's physical abilities because of the choreography. I hear all the time things like "TDK's Batman could barely take on 2 guards, how will he handle Bruce Lee?" It is entirely a directing problem and not a script/story problem. Within the context of that universe, Batman was meant to move much, much faster.

 

[BatLobster]

I can't believe people still have feel like they have to justify stuff with "it's an opinion".

Well, no duh. All anyone ever does in this thread all day is express opinions. Once you put it out there, those who disagree will challenge it and give examples of why they think you're wrong. Just comes with the territory. Back and forth the pendulum swings, over and over...

Also, I think people need to make up their mind on the fight stuff...was is the choreography or was it the way it was filmed? Because if it was the choreography, then the actual fight choreographers are to blame too.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Outside of the fighting itself, I think the action in BB is better than TDK. And the Bane fight in Rises is one of the best fights in superhero movie history.

 

[Kane52630]

It's a pipe dream... but my body will (or wont) be ready if someone like Gareth Evans directs a Batman film.

 

[BH/HHH]

I can't believe people still have feel like they have to justify stuff with "it's an opinion".

Well, no duh. All anyone ever does in this thread all day is express opinions. Once you put it out there, those who disagree will challenge it and give examples of why they think you're wrong. Just comes with the territory. Back and forth the pendulum swings, over and over...

Also, I think people need to make up their mind on the fight stuff...was is the choreography or was it the way it was filmed? Because if it was the choreography, then the actual fight choreographers are to blame too.

But some people make you think you have to say that because you basically get NO WAY response.

It was the choreography mostly for me but why can't it be both. Its not quick enough in my opinion.

 

[The Joker]

If thats a comment about me then thats not the only reason I thought she was bad. I thought she was flat throughout the whole movie.

She was flat throughout the movie. Miranda Tate was a dull character. The only scene Cottiard was good in was Talia's reveal scene.

 

[Travesty]

Cue a troll post about feeling it in my bones and stuff.

But for serious, this is how Nolan should have done his fight choreography.

 

[Shikamaru]

Also, I think people need to make up their mind on the fight stuff...was is the choreography or was it the way it was filmed? Because if it was the choreography, then the actual fight choreographers are to blame too.

It was the choreography. Both Nolan and the choreographers are to blame. Nolan is the director and it is his job to ensure that things like the choreography is solid.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

She was flat throughout the movie. Miranda Tate was a dull character. The only scene Cottiard was good in was Talia's reveal scene.

I thought the character was mediocre as well. Marion wasn't given much interesting to do so yeah she is a great actress who was utterly wasted on a nothing character. She barely registers in The Dark Knight Rises.

I can understand someone thinking she was good in her non role but great? I don't get using such a strong word to describe that performance. She's great in Inception so it's not the size of the role that's the problem to me.

 

[shauner111]

I didn't know Bane's creators said that. Alright. The Heavens have spoken then.



Calm down? That would imply I am angry in the first place, which I am not. I don't see any signs in my post that I "take things too seriously". There are no emoticons, no all caps, no exclamation marks, etc. But if you want to interpret a bunch of plain old text that way, sure.

Sorry if this offends you, but you clearly do care about what other people think. It's not like this is only time you brought up what other writers think. You have a track record of consistently bringing up what other people thought of TDKR, even in threads that have nothing to do with Batman (i.e. the JL speculation thread). On average, You have used more "angry internet language" for lack of better term (things like emoticons, all caps, exclamations marks) than anyone else here (except for maybe milost). You've resorted to purely emotional arguments before, an example being the time you somehow interpreted the claim that TDKR's ending goes against Batman's essence as me thinking I'm better than everyone huh. Most importantly, you have a very militant black-and-white view of TDKR's "haters". Anyone who takes issues with TDKR is a hater and everyone not in agreement with the ending is a purist who can't accept different interpretations of Batman. Your most recent response BH/HHH only further proves my point. The guy just casually states "I don't think Nolan gave his 100% into this, that's just the feeling I have" and your immediate response is to get in Penn Jillette mode and call BS off the top of your lungs. So yeah, I think you take things too seriously. If you aren't, that's just the impression you're giving off.

As for why people like me still talk about TDKR today, it's simple. It's because it is an open forum and anyone can freely comment here, both people who liked and disliked the movie. You know my reason though? I've stated it before: It's because of you guys. I like the discussions I have here with (most of) you specifically. Almost every post I read here gives me something to think about regardless of whether I completely agree or completely disagree with said post. It doesn't even have to be something related to Batman; just something to think about in general. But it's just so much easier to jump to ad hominems, right?

As for this thread being "bombarded by haters", I don't see that. The numbers are about even on each side - me, milost, Joker, BH/HHH, etc. vs. BLR, you, DACrowe, theShape, etc.

If that's why you keep coming back to this thread, then i can respect that. I actually wasn't really talking about you anyway. Not even Joker. It was mainly directed towards milost, travesty, phantasm, and the others who just come in to rip the movie apart. I go into the Burton forums once in a while and say some negative things, but i also add my positive opinions about the Keaton movies. Things i love about them. It's also well over 20 years since those movies and it's all about nostalgia. The hating on here is literally a never-ending thing since 2012.

As for the claim that you made about me caring about others think, and why i post quotes from writers/directors/celebs. I already answered that in the post you're replying to. There's nothing more to say about that. I give you the reasons why. And no, it doesn't offend me. No worries.

When somebody says that Nolan just didn't care about Rises like he did the first two. Im sorry but that's just a false thing to say, opinion or not. And that's how i see it. Because it's painfully obvious that he was really enthused by every minute of making it. At first? Before they started writing?? Absolutely. He didnt care at all. He cared more about Inception. But when they found an idea, to end the story, he gave it his all. If one feels that the story was rushed then OK. But as a filmmaker, the trouble he went to, to make this movie....yeaaah, ill stand by what i said.

Finally..

When i bit your head off when you said it wasn't the essence. I DID get a little too serious there. I think that's ridiculous. Why? Because "essence" to me has nothing to do with major details like "Batman is a tragic hero that needs to go on and on". I think that's not true at all. The essence is that he's a human being without powers who stalks criminals in the night, all because he's been mentally damaged as a child from when he witnessed his mom & dad murdered before his eyes. THAT is the essence. Killing, no killing, black suit, blue/grey suit, Joker or Killer Croc, who he falls in love with, how he ends his journey, how old he is when he does so, are all filled in by various writers. And none of them are more accurate than the next. It's just different ways to fill in the blanks of Bruce's life. The end to Dark Knight Returns, Batman Beyond or Dark Knight Rises are all true to the essence.

To quote a friend on this forum "Georgec"..."Batman doesn't fight criminals forever because he's the "tragic hero". He does it because there are always criminals to fight. And there are always criminals to fight because DC needs to keep making money. There are two primary threats in the Nolanverse - internal (mob) and external (League of Shadows)".

Batman isn't that obsessed with being Batman forever in this. He never made a vow to his parents and isn't going to stay Batman even if there are muggers on the streets. He cares about the mob because that's where it starts. And then he tends to escalation. The mob is gone soon after TDK. The League of Shadows are extinct after the bomb is gone and Talia/Bane both die. It's done. Bruce doesn't need to stay Batman so he goes back to what he originally said in Begins about wanting it to be a symbol so it's more than just the man underneath the cowl. He chooses to live happily ever after. This is not against the essence of the character in any way shape or form. If you dont agree with Bruce not vowing to his parents then it's really the entire trilogy that you have a problem with. Not just Rises. Then i guess it's an elseworlds story to you. But to me, the essence has nothing to do with that. It's stripping down Batman to his bones (Trav will have a field day with that one ). A human who works hard to become Batman, a creature of the night, all because he can't cope with what happened to him as a child. BOOM. There's your essence in the most simplistic form.

Peter Parker gets bit by a radioactive spider, uncle Ben dies and he feels inspired to become Spider-Man to take down criminals. Done.

The details will change, things added. If you dont like the end to Rises or that he retires for 8 years...you simply have a problem with the movie and Nolan's version. But it's AGAINST THE ESSENCE? Nope!

 

[BatmanBeyond]

So Modine was hammy....and ALL of the mobster characters in BB and TDK weren't? Commissioner Loeb? All the random cops in TDK? The bank manager etc? Please. ("It was Ramirezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz")

Also, I thought Cotillard gave a perfectly good performance. Some of her scenes with Bruce are amongst my favorite Bruce scenes in the trilogy. I love when Bruce is pleading with her to sit on the energy project as she pleads with him to trust the world. Great dramatic stuff. She made her idealism so seductive, as opposed to Rachel's annoying lectures. Both female characters in this film were a step up from Rachel, in general.

To be quite honest, I don't see what the problem with being 'hammy' is, it's not like the main characters were bringing the ham to the table.

 

[shauner111]

Yeah, it's fine because it's still a Batman movie. Or a gangster movie sometimes. It's only the smaller characters that have those roles/performances so it's fine. It doesn't bother me when an extra, a cop, a mobster does something hammy. It goes with the genre. But i dont think Modine was worse than anything ive seen in the first two movies. Ben Mendolhson (John Daggett) kinda delivered that type of performance but he is a FANTASTIC actor if you check his filmography out. And i think it totally fit his rich guy ******* character, in the same way that Modine played Foley well. Or the Chechen, etc.

I do like how Rises didn't deal with too many extras though.

 

[bilbo baggins]

i really do think in a nutshell that the trilogy is a crime drama with batman sprinkled in.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ I think that is an absurd statement. Batman in general is very crime drama oriented.

 

[AnneFan]

Cue a troll post about feeling it in my bones and stuff.

The sage continues.
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=27753739&highlight=#post27753739

 

[Travesty]

 

[milost]

Ah, Superhero Hype > TDKR > TDKR General Discussion Thread always brings a smile to my face.

 

[James H]

Bizarre how anyone can think that Nolan did not give it his all when making the film.

He analysed the likes of A Tale of Two Cities, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, Blade Runner, Doctor Zhivago, Prince of the City and The Battle of Algiers prior to making the film, and has incorporated elements from these various works in The Dark Knight Rises or been influenced by them in some way. If I'm not mistaken, the whole cast sat down to watch these films.

As well as this, he has combined parts of the following to make the film:

Knightfall, The Dark Knight Returns, No Man's Land, Bane of Demon, Batman:Bane, Catwoman #1, Batman #1, Catwoman: The Dark End of the Street and Batman: The Cult.

He has introduced so many new characters in the film: Bane, Catwoman, Robin and Talia Al Ghul, as well as people like Daggett, Foley & Stryver.

Nolan goes underground in this film, with many scenes happening in the sewers, where Bane is forming an army. He is showing different aspects of Gotham - we also see the Stock Exchange, the football stadium, etc. Nolan is expanding on the world of the previous 2 films, as well as showing the impact of the events of the previous film on Bruce and Gotham.

All of this is happening as well as the main thing, which is completing Bruce's journey, showing the audience that there is a possible future for this character who we care about, the boy who saw his parents being murdered, the man who has only suffered throughout this trilogy. Nolan used a lot of different sources for inspiration and gave the audience a conclusion to the story he wanted to tell.

Even if you didn't like it, even if you think that the various parts didn't come together well - A lot of effort for a superhero movie, don't you think?

Isn't The Dark Knight Rises one of the biggest films since the silent era? Around 11,000 extras in a real environment.

And since we are playing "Assume how much effort the director put into making his film" - I think Nolan put more effort into making The Dark Knight Rises than Snyder has in his entire filmography combined.

 

[james-in-cali]

I agree a ton of effort went into making the film, but I'm sure other directors have put as much or more effort into making a terrible film. Stanley Kubrick invented a camera lense and shot Barry Lyndon for well over a year and it made 10$ ( source needed, I'm guessing) at the box office, you saying Nolan put in more effort than that?

It being a comic book movie should not have any relevance anymore, the highest grossing films of all time have been cbm's if it were 20 years ago I would understand.

Goyer seems to get a lot of credit around here too, what is everyone's opinion of him? I thought he was a hack, and from what I have read he seems to be well respected. The only good work he has done has been the Nolan trilogy right? And maybe mos?

 

[georgec]

Goyer seems to get a lot of credit around here too, what is everyone's opinion of him? I thought he was a hack, and from what I have read he seems to be well respected. The only good work he has done has been the Nolan trilogy right? And maybe mos?

Heh, I think you should visit the Superman/Batman boards.