The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - Part 152

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember very well the first teaser trailer. I went with my family to see a movie, I don't recall which one to be honest, but the first scenes when Bruce is arriving to the monastery, even before the bats and other imagery were shown, I remember saying to my sister "It's a new Batman movie, I know it!". It was awesome!
 
Fantastic interview with Nolan at THR in which he reminisces on his career. Here's what he said about TDKT:

Was a Batman film something that you had long had a desire to tackle? And was there something specific that you wanted to bring to it?
Yeah. It came to me in a very interesting way, which was my agent, Dan Aloni, called and said, “It seems unlikely you’d be interested in this, but Warners is sort of casting around for what they would do with Batman.” It had reached the end of its last sort of life, if you’d like. And at the time, nobody used the term "reboot" — that didn’t exist — so it was really a question of, "What would you do with this?" I said, “Well, actually, that is something I’m interested in,” because one of the great films that I am very influenced by that we haven’t talked about was Dick Donner’s Superman — 1978, that came out. It made a huge impression on me. I can remember the trailers for it, I can remember about Superman the movie, all of that. And it was very clear to me that however brilliant — and it was very brilliant — Tim Burton’s take on Batman was in 1989, and it was obviously a worldwide smash, it wasn’t that sort of origin story, it wasn’t that real-world kind of epic movie; it was very Tim Burton, a very idiosyncratic, gothic kind of masterpiece. But it left this interesting gap in pop-culture, which is you know, you had Superman in 1978, but they never did the sort of 1978 Batman, where you see the origin story, where the world is pretty much the world we live in but there’s this extraordinary figure there, which is what worked so well in Dick Donner’s Superman film. And so I was able to get in the studio and say, “Well, that’s what I would do with it.” I don’t even know who was first banging around the term "reboot" or whatever, but it was after Batman Begins, so we didn’t have any kind of reference for that idea of kind of resetting a franchise. It was more a thing of, "Nobody’s ever made this origin story in this way and treated it as a piece of action filmmaking, a sort of contemporary action blockbuster."

Grounded in realism …

Grounded in realism — grounded in heightened realism, grounded in the degree of realism that we expected at the time from, you know, our action movies, Jerry Bruckheimer action movies and things, that would have realistic textures, you know? So, "OK, let’s do that." What I loved about Superman was the way New York felt like New York, or rather Metropolis felt like New York. Metropolis felt like a city you could recognize — and then there was this guy flying through the streets. "That’s amazing, so let’s do that for Batman, and let’s start by putting together an amazing cast," which is what they had done with that film, but which I hadn’t seen done since — they had everybody from [Marlon Brando] to Glenn Ford, playing Superman's dad, you know, it was an incredible cast. So we started putting together this amazing cast based around Christian [Bale], who seemed perfect for Batman, but bringing him Sir Michael Caine and Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman and Tom Wilkinson. It was just incredible.

At that time, were you thinking, “I’m signing myself up for multiple films”?

No, not at all. I only had a deal to do the one film. When I first spoke about the project with [screenwriter] David Goyer, I think we said, "I guess if it was successful. …" At the time, everybody thought in terms of trilogies, which I guess they probably don’t anymore because they split the third film into two. (Laughs.) But at the time, The Matrix guys were doing their sequels, everything was about trilogies, "What’s the trilogy?!" And we didn’t want to answer that question. Privately, ourselves, we started to put together a vague idea of where a second and third film were going, and then I immediately shot them down. I was like, “You know what? You’ve got to put everything into the one movie and just try and make a great movie because you may not get this chance again.” And then, when it succeeded, we were able to think about, "OK, what would we do in a sequel?" We were able to adapt and grow with the way the public perceived the films and with what the films became, as opposed to trying to plan ahead, you know, five years, six years or whatever. And we were given the time by the studio to let them fall, so three years between that movie and Dark Knight and four years between Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises, you know?
 
It is ironic, the last great trilogy revolved around a great director who attempted to make 3 separate films...

Too many studios expect/anticipate too much and lead the directors to quicksand because the sequel is always looming and undermining your current film.
 
At the time, everybody thought in terms of trilogies, which I guess they probably don’t anymore because they split the third film into two. (Laughs.)

Ain't that the truth!
 
Im pretty annoyed by the last movie being split into two parts. Whether it's a trilogy or not, it's such a desperate thing for studios to get more money. I can forgive it with Mockingjay because i'm sure that'll be a case where you can do a edit, combining both parts into one movie. But just the idea bugs me. Does Avengers have to have a Part 1 and 2? Give me a break.

I bet they could have cut out a couple of scenes in Mockingjay and just made it one movie.
 
Im pretty annoyed by the last movie being split into two parts. Whether it's a trilogy or not, it's such a desperate thing for studios to get more money. I can forgive it with Mockingjay because i'm sure that'll be a case where you can do a edit, combining both parts into one movie. But just the idea bugs me. Does Avengers have to have a Part 1 and 2? Give me a break.

I bet they could have cut out a couple of scenes in Mockingjay and just made it one movie.

Yes, because Marvel movies generally have so much story to tell. It´s impossible to tell it all in one movie.
 
I'm actually okay with avengers 3 being two movies, more so than the other two parters being made. Thanos is worthy of that. Plus it's not ruining the elegance of a three part series really since avengers 3 part 2 would be the 21st film i think.
 
Last edited:
Fargo is 90 minutes. Amazing story, amazing characters, great film, short and sweet. We need more movies like that.
 
I'm actually okay with avengers 3 being two movies, more so than the two parters being made. Thanos is worthy of that. Plus it's not ruining the elegance of a three part series really since avengers 3 part 2 would be the 21st film i think.

I agree. I look at the MCU as a whole and the Avengers: Infinity movies would just be the 20th and 21st movies of the series.
 
The thing that makes me okay with Infinity War being two parts is that there are movies in between. I expect that the movies in between actually take place between the two Infinity War movies.
 
The thing that makes me okay with Infinity War being two parts is that there are movies in between. I expect that the movies in between actually take place between the two Infinity War movies.


That's right. Captain Marvel and Inhumans are in between the movies.
 
Marvel's movies have always had an episodic structure, mimicking the comics they are based on, so splitting Avengers 3 makes sense. It does not make sense when you are working with a trilogy of books and make four films out of them. A trilogy is a clean, round, and symmetrical way of telling a big overarching story. Stories have been executed with three-act structures since the beginning.
 
TDKR had a lot of story going on. The end of Bruce's journey, the beginning of Blakes, all loose ends being tied up, etc, etc. It could have easily been a two part finale, but ultimately I like it as one whole film. A longer run time would have been more fitting, but I do enjoy the film as is. I wouldn't want it chopped up.

Begins...Falls...Rises.
 
TDKR had a lot of story going on. The end of Bruce's journey, the beginning of Blakes, all loose ends being tied up, etc, etc. It could have easily been a two part finale, but ultimately I like it as one whole film. A longer run time would have been more fitting, but I do enjoy the film as is. I wouldn't want it chopped up.

Begins...Falls...Rises.

I´ve watched longer movies with less going on than in TDKR. I´ve also watched shorter movies with more going on. I generally prefer shorter movies but TDKR´s lenght didn´t bother me. TA´s lenght did.
 
TDKR still flies by pretty quickly.

Oddly enough it really does, and TDK is shorter yet feels longer. I think it's because so much time passes in the film, yet it has that break neck pace that TDK had.
 
I enjoyed Nolan's comment about how the trilogy trend is sort of ending because of the desire to split up the third movie into two parts. I've always felt there was a certain amount of integrity in wanting to do the third movie more epic in scope but all as a complete experience, giving us as the audience more bang for our buck. It would've been so easy to split them up and double dip, and I'm sure the idea was bandied at some point but I think they made the right call. I'm not saying splitting up a movie can't work, but I think for this particular series, the right choice was made. It just felt very fulfilling to have this story solidify as a proper 1, 2, 3 and done trilogy.

Maybe it's an OCD thing on my part, but I dunno, it just felt right.
 
Last edited:
Damn, I never thought of Batman Begins as being "1978 Batman". That's a fantastic analogy, now that I think about it.

In many ways, those two films can be grouped together better than it (Begins) can with MoS.
 

I don't know if you'll find this hilarious or whatever: There was an article like this wherein the headline says that "Nolan was influenced by Richard Donner". So naturally, the Nolan "haters" "jump"-commented, calling Nolan a liar. In one of those comments the discussion, or "debate" goes on like this:

QOnPAFM5.png
 
Why would you post the comments of someone who is obviously ******ed?
 
My brain hurts after reading that conversation. It should be illegal for people that stupid to be allowed on the internet.
 
That was indeed hilarious but also a little depressing. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"