The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - Part 150

[BatLobster]

Major Catch 22 there, haha.

 

[BlueLightning]

Thing is, they are not Superman movies. They are movies in which Superman is featured. It is not the same thing.

 

[Shikamaru]

The problem is MOS was a setup for another Superman sequel and now we are rushing into WF/JL without Superman even having an established status quo.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm a fan of both Batman and Superman (whaaaat?!?!) so whether they get solo films, teamup films, or whatever I don't really care... I'm happy.

 

[shauner111]

Look, honestly...I do think a Bats/Supes movie is kind of a more interesting direction to go than a normal sequel route. I think WB's strategy is cool and makes a lot of sense.

I'm just trying to put myself in their shoes a bit. Man of Steel was supposed to be the Begins of Superman. If Batman Begins led into a Batman/Superman movie, I would've been so pissed.

For sure. But it's not like we had been seeing movies and tv shows since the 70s of Batman going up against the Joker, almost every single time. If that was the case before Begins, then i would have welcomed the 2008 sequel as some Batman vs Superman movie where they're both young, leading into Justice League, before finally getting back to a solo movie. I would be like OH GOD ANOTHER MOVIE WITH THE JOKER? WE JUST HAD A 10 YEAR TV SHOW WITH THAT! BEFORE THAT, WE HAD LIKE 4 MOVIES WHERE THE TWO FACE OFF!

Id be like "bring it on!" if i was a huge Superman fan right now. They're spicing it up a little. They're still getting their beloved Lex + another rogue.

I dont see what their deal is. I could understand if they announced zero solo films, meaning no Brainiac or whatever. But that doesn't seem to be the case. They're getting that movie in just four years from now and they dont have to wait with their d*ck in their hand the whole time like we did.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm a fan of both Batman and Superman (whaaaat?!?!) so whether they get solo films, teamup films, or whatever I don't really care... I'm happy.

And there are a lot of general DCU fans in that boat, which is fine. This is all part of the inevitable reaction you get by mixing these characters up in such a high profile film though. You're bringing a lot of fans with very (often differing) strong opinions to the same party. "Worlds are colliding Jerry!"

@shauner- That's a fair enough point about the Lex thing.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, although I wouldn't call myself a "general" fan. I don't just have a general love for all things DC, I am specifically passionate about both these characters and eager to see them interact.

 

[BatLobster]

I do think seeing them interact on the big screen for the first time could be something pretty monumental, regardless of how big a fan one is of either character. My Batman fandom completely dwarfs my Superman fandom, but I grew up around the Donner films, Lois & Clark, STAS, etc. so I have a healthy respect for the history of the character. I was really excited for Man of Steel, but the movie unfortunately didn't re-energize me about the character the way I hoped it would.

 

[Shikamaru]

I was extremely excited for Man of Steel, and the first time I saw the film, I freakin' loved it. I loved all the characterizations, the tone, the themes centered around hope, the way it balanced Clark's godlike nature with his human side, the way the whole world was still heightened but realistic at the same time, etc.

Then when I got out, I thought about the film more and more, later seeing it a second time, and a lot of things just fell apart. Overall I think the film is ok - no worse than the average mediocre MCU film, maybe even a bit higher than IM2/Thor/TDW/CA:TFA - but it reeks of wasted potential. There's a lot of brilliant ideas in the film but they're either poorly executed or don't work in context, which is the same thing I thought about TDKR.

Also, there is one enormous thing that pisses me off about the film that no one brings up, not even the most hardcore MOS hater. I won't dig into all the flaws the film has, but I will bring up this one thing: it doesn't stay true to its promise.

Everything leading up to the film for two years pitched the entire reboot on how the real world would react to Superman. How the revealed existence of Kryptonians would affect us, how Superman flying around Metropolis would affect the daily citizen, how "religions would be questioned" (Goyer's own words), etc. Where exactly in the film do we see any of that? Nowhere. Closest thing we get is a BS 1-minute speech from Perry White and 5 seconds of a guy on TV saying "I think the aliens come in peace". Other than that, the world's reaction to Superman is nowhere to be seen in all its running time.

I know people will ask "What about all the army scenes?" That's the army/government, not the general public as we know it. There is a world of difference between how the government would react to a situation like that and how the general public would. I know that may sound silly, but it's true. Heck, we arguably knew how the government would react to that before even seeing the film...the same way they usually react in other superhero films, no surprise there. Goyer/Snyder/Nolan specifically talked about how the public at large would react to Superman. To sell your entire reboot on that one premise and then not have it present in the film is completely unacceptable.

It's one of those things that shouldn't have been left for the sequel, and it's part of why I can't get hyped for that movie. I've lost faith in this production team, for now.

 

[ThePhantasm]

There's that conversation with Pa Kent saying people will question their faith and previous notions about the universe. But honestly there's not enough timespan between Superman's first reveal and the end of the film for that sort of fallout to occur. I can see how the marketing was misleading there, but in the context of the film that sort of thing is, to me, like Gordon's "escalation" remark at the end of Begins... an obvious consequence to the advent of the hero, but one left for a sequel.

 

[BatLobster]

What's kind of interesting is I thought Superman Returns was sort of guilty of the same thing. It advertised its premise as "What if the world moved on from Superman?", which is an interesting concept, but the film just pays it lip-service and offers no real exploration.

I feel like maybe it's endemic of the character to a degree maybe? Like he brings with him all these grand, sweeping notions that are hard to actually explore in the format of the film. Possibly? I'm raising a question here, not making a statement.

 

[The Batman]

MOS was a mediocre film, so I don't feel bad that there won't be a straight up sequel anytime soon. Having superhero teamups is much more interesting than having another Snyder directed solo Supes film.

 

[Shikamaru]

They tell but don't show. Pa Kent brings it up, but we never actually see it.

It's not the same thing though. It would be like marketing BB on the escalation angle instead of TDK.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Yeah, marketing is frequently misleading. But I don't weigh a film's value on its marketing.

 

[The Batman]

If you watched Batman Begins and never watched TDK or TDKR, you could feel like you watched a complete story.

In some respects, MOS is about setting things up for a sequel instead of making a single installment feel as complete as possible.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's not just the marketing because it feels like there's a part missing in the film. They clearly set up that theme in the beginning the same way Begins sets up fear and corruption, and then they never address it. It's like the parents subplot in TASM, except it's much worse this time because the whole theme is dropped as opposed to a plot point

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm not sure how people questioning things constitutes a "theme." I mean, where would you go with that theme anyways, other than showing reactions?

For me the film was about Clark gaining faith in humanity and finally choosing this place as his home, whether this place would accept him or not. He took a leap of faith. He doesn't know what the reaction will be going forward. He made the right decision regardless of the fallout. And his faith is somewhat validated by Lois Lane. And it will be challenged in the future by Lex.

The film ends on an uncertain note. That's why there's the scene with the drone. People haven't decided to fully trust Superman. But it doesn't matter to him... this place is his home. These people are his, even if they hate him.

 

[BatLobster]

I'm not sure how people questioning things constitutes a "theme." I mean, where would you go with that theme anyways, other than showing reactions?

Heh, that's kind of how I feel when people talk about how we didn't see enough of Gotham's reaction to the siege in TDKR.

I think in the case of MoS, it's not so much that the world's reaction was a major theme (it's a major "topic" which isn't quite the same), but I think seeing just a tad more of that would've went a long way in enriching the movie a bit more and fleshing out that sense of reality they were going for. They did some great world-building on Krypton, but not the greatest job world-building on Earth if that makes sense. You're 100% correct about what the real themes of the movie are, but I just think those details would've added a lot. Like in Begins, we saw Batman through the eyes of a kid in the Narrows. I would've liked to have seen something similar in MoS, just Superman through the eyes of an ordinary citizen to add to that sense of awe. Jimmy Olsen could've filled that role maybe.

 

[Tequilla]

I don't think anybody pinpoints that criticism to Man of Steel because its never explored in the movie. I would say , not even hinted. But it would definitely be a cool topic to develop. Superman existence should create a clear conflict. But there's none of that.

 

[Gray Ghost]

It's not just the marketing because it feels like there's a part missing in the film. They clearly set up that theme in the beginning the same way Begins sets up fear and corruption, and then they never address it. It's like the parents subplot in TASM, except it's much worse this time because the whole theme is dropped as opposed to a plot point

It's definitely not just the marketing. The movie pretty much beats you over the head with this stuff repeatedly. Almost every flashback with Pa Kent has it, Lois and Perry talk about it, hell Pa Kent sacrifices himself because of it. And then they do absolutely nothing with it. What a waste of potential. Why set it up and then not follow through?

 

[BlueLightning]

It bothers me that they could have explored those areas in the sequel. I hoped they would. But now, they are exploring it in a different angle, adding other heroes to the mix. And with that statue, I think it is unlikely they explore those themes properly with the structure of films they are trying to build.

 

[Travesty]

But anyways, as far as MOS is concerned, I think we can agree that it's all Nolan's fault.

 

[BlueLightning]

Hmm, I'm not following. Could you elaborate?

 

[Shikamaru]

It's definitely not just the marketing. The movie pretty much beats you over the head with this stuff repeatedly. Almost every flashback with Pa Kent has it, Lois and Perry talk about it, hell Pa Kent sacrifices himself because of it. And then they do absolutely nothing with it. What a waste of potential. Why set it up and then not follow through?

Exactly.

 

[Two-Face]

So have you guys heard Affleck will star in a solo Batfilm in 2019?