The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - Part 153

[Travesty]

Ha, I was thinking that punchline before I even read it.

 

[Malicked]

Rises is my second favourite 'threequel' ever (just behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). Though as I say this, it already sounds like I'm damning with feint praise ...t:

 

[I Am The Knight]

Yeah, that's one of my problems with Rises. It's kinda boring and the climax is a big letdown.

 

[The Joker]

For me TDK is probably still the most 'rewatchable'

Snap. I've watched it more than any other Batman movie to date.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

If I had a quarter for every time I watched TDK I could afford a round trip on the MTA.

 

[titansupes]

TDK and TDKR for the epics. BB for a more straight-foward actioner. I don't really rewatch movies I really love all that much, because I don't want to get used to them. So I don't know which would be more "rewatchable", really.

 

[BatLobster]

Rises is my second favourite 'threequel' ever (just behind The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). Though as I say this, it already sounds like I'm damning with feint praise ...t:

It's my favorite threequel ever. I don't think I'm damning it with feint praise when I say that, cause I think making a third movie in a trilogy work is extremely tricky for a variety of reasons. And I think after TDK becoming an instant classic with a great ending that could've worked if it was left alone, coupled with Heath's Joker being off the table, the third Nolan Bat-film was arguably in the most difficult position that's ever faced the third film of a trilogy. There's a reason many doubted Nolan was even going to make the film. I think even Nolan had to know on some level that the only way to walk out on top was to stop after TDK, but I'm glad he chose to finish the story and swing for the fences anyway. Many directors wouldn't have had the balls. There was an interview from like 6 months or so before TDKR came out, I haven't been able to find it since, but I swear to God, Nolan said something like "I honestly don't know if I can say we've made a better movie than the second one, but we feel really great about where we've taken the characters to end our story and feel like we still have something to say about them", or something to that effect. I swear, that interview is out there somewhere.

I don't really consider ROTK in the same way because the story was all predetermined by the books and the movies were shot as one giant movie (which is an incredible feat in an of itself, but it's a different kind of thing).

 

[The Joker]

Rises is definitely the best of the CBM threequels. I know that's not saying a lot considering the state of most of the third chapters in CBM franchises, but Rises didn't just break the threequel curse, it stands up as a good movie. I mean it's the most flawed of the trilogy, and I still have my issues with it, but a good movie nonetheless.

I often wonder what it might have been like if Heath was still alive. Because I think we can all agree Joker would have been in it. Even David Goyer said so at Comic Con. Not saying as the main villain again, but he would definitely have been there, and I don't mean in a Scarecrow like cameo. Although as part of Joker's role in the movie I could totally have seen Joker playing Judge for kicks and sending people off to die;

 

[georgec]

TDK and TDKR for the epics. BB for a more straight-foward actioner. I don't really rewatch movies I really love all that much, because I don't want to get used to them. So I don't know which would be more "rewatchable", really.

Same here. I've probably seen BB the most of the three, if only because I tried showing it to as many people as possible.

I've probably seen TDK fewer than 10 times, and TDKR maybe 7-8 times. It's not out of a desire to see them more. I just feel like they sit so well in my memory that I don't need to rewatch them in order to rekindle my love for them.

 

[BatLobster]

I often wonder what it might have been like if Heath was still alive. Because I think we can all agree Joker would have been in it. Even David Goyer said so at Comic Con. Not saying as the main villain again, but he would definitely have been there, and I don't mean in a Scarecrow like cameo. Although as part of Joker's role in the movie I could totally have seen Joker playing Judge for kicks and sending people off to die;

I think that question will always be something that gets speculated and wondered about by the fanbase. If there was ever a holy grail for fans of TDKT, besides an extended cut of TDKR, it would be any outline or ideas for a third movie that existed after TDK's script was written but before Heath passed away, scribbled somewhere in Goyer or Jonah's notebook. I'm pretty sure Goyer had already honed in on Bane in as a villain for the third movie in 2008, based on interviews around the TDK premiere where he hinted at not wanting to do The Riddler and wanting to go with a lesser-known villain like they did with BB. Like you said, Goyer also said that bringing The Joker back would've been a no-brainer if Heath had lived. Even during the BB days he criticized the Burton film for killing off the character and seemed keen on using him in both the second and third film . So based on all of that my feeling is we very well could've had a fairly similar movie in terms of the characters and overall structure, where The Joker still figured into the story somehow. Though I do think writing The Joker, especially Heath's Joker as a secondary character might've proven to be very tricky. Just his mere presence in the story has the danger of undervaluing whoever the main villain is supposed to be, because of how frickin' evil and brilliant he is. Judge Joker would've been a great moment.

Here's my attempt though. Okay, so what if Bane and Talia's plan is actually not to detonate the nuke, but really just use it as leverage out so they can stay in Gotham for as long as necessary, do their revolution and weed out all the corrupt, as long as that takes? But of course they'd still have a detonator as a last resort option in case the plan fails or the people revolt against them. I could see a finale where the detonator is the big McGuffin rather than the bomb itself. Enter The Joker who is looking to get his hands on the detonator so he can have one last cat and mouse game with Batman while going out in a blaze of glory with all of Gotham. He played along during the siege and did his part, but when the opportunity strikes he wants to exploit the most horrific aspect of the plan. Joker would be the 'final big bad' in this case, rather than Talia. I think in this scenario Joker would really just be looking to have the last laugh on everyone and that's about it. Just one final Batman/Joker confrontation to end the trilogy on. This would still have probably undermined Bane and/or Talia as villains, but people would've been more okay with it because it's The Joker.

We'll never know what might've been, but it's fun to speculate.

 

[ThePhantasm]

it already sounds like I'm damning with feint praise ...t:

I don't think I'm damning it with feint praise when I say that

*faint praise

"feint praise" isn't a thing

 

[BatLobster]

Trueee haha.

 

[hafizbat]

It's my favorite threequel ever. I don't think I'm damning it with feint praise when I say that, cause I think making a third movie in a trilogy work is extremely tricky for a variety of reasons. And I think after TDK becoming an instant classic with a great ending that could've worked if it was left alone, coupled with Heath's Joker being off the table, the third Nolan Bat-film was arguably in the most difficult position that's ever faced the third film of a trilogy. There's a reason many doubted Nolan was even going to make the film. I think even Nolan had to know on some level that the only way to walk out on top was to stop after TDK, but I'm glad he chose to finish the story and swing for the fences anyway. Many directors wouldn't have had the balls. There was an interview from like 6 months or so before TDKR came out, I haven't been able to find it since, but I swear to God, Nolan said something like "I honestly don't know if I can say we've made a better movie than the second one, but we feel really great about where we've taken the characters to end our story and feel like we still have something to say about them", or something to that effect. I swear, that interview is out there somewhere.

I don't really consider ROTK in the same way because the story was all predetermined by the books and the movies were shot as one giant movie (which is an incredible feat in an of itself, but it's a different kind of thing).

How do you feel about this conclusion from Film Crit Hulk? I read it once and thought it was an interesting theory, even though we'll never know.

WHICH LEADS TO ONE MORE TERRIFYING QUESTION BEYOND THAT: COULD CHRISTOPHER NOLAN REALLY HAVE MADE SUCH A THEMATICALLY DISINTERESTED MOVIE?

SURE HE COULD.

BUT FIRST A WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS PURE CONJECTURE CROSSED WITH A LITTLE BIT OF INSIDE BASEBALL. AS SUCH, IT'S INHERENTLY UNFAIR. SO PLEASE LET'S NOT TAKE ANY OF THIS AT ANYTHING BEYOND FACE-VALUE. COOL? COOL.

SO... HULK IS REASONABLY SURE THAT NOLAN DID NOT WANT TO MAKE THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. COMING OFF THE DARK KNIGHT HE WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT HE HAD MADE HIS DEFINITIVE VERSION OF BATMAN AND ONE HE WAS COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH. FURTHER COMPLICATING MATTERS WAS HOW INCREDIBLY AFFECTED HE WAS BY THE DEATH OF HEATH LEDGER. NOT JUST ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, BUT WITH THE RUEFUL ADMITTANCE THAT THE JOKER WAS GOING TO BE AN ABSOLUTE FIXTURE IN THE ENDGAME OF HIS TRILOGY. HE WAS QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. SO AFTER HE FINISHED THE FILM HE WENT ON A BREAK TO GET AWAY FROM IT AND THE FILM WENT ON TO BECOME THIS MASSIVE COMMERCIAL AND CRITICAL SUCCESS AND IT WAS EVEN HAILED AS A MASTERPIECE. AND WOULDN'T YOU KNOW IT, BUT WARNERS CAME KNOCKING ABOUT THE SEQUEL. THEY KNEW THE SUCCESS OF THE THIRD FILM WAS TIED TO HIM AND WERE SMART ENOUGH NOT TO PLAY THE "WE CAN GET SOMEONE CHEAPER" GAME. WARNERS HAS ALWAYS BEEN VERY SMART ABOUT THIS KIND OF THING. SO THE FIRST THING THEY DID WAS GIVE HIM AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE OTHER ISSUE WAS THAT NOLAN ABSOLUTELY DID NOT WANT TO JUMP BACK INTO THE WORLD OF BATMAN SO SOON AND WANTED TO MAKE ANOTHER FILM FIRST (LIKE HE DID WITH THE PRESTIGE). SO WARNERS GAVE HIM A BLANK CHECK AND SAID GO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT AS LONG AS YOU COME BACK FOR BATMAN. THIS IS HOW WE GOT HIS MASTERPIECE INCEPTION.

AND SO WHEN IT CAME TIME TO RETURN TO THE BAT, NOLAN WAS IN AN INTERESTING PLACE. HE CRACKED A STORY WITH ELEMENTS HE FOUND INTERESTING. HE BROUGHT IN THE ACTORS WITH WHOM HE HAD AMAZING RELATIONSHIPS. BUT HULK ARGUES THAT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THIS PRETENSE, IT EITHER CONSCIOUSLY OR SUBCONSCIOUSLY ENDED UP AFFECTING WHAT HIS GOALS WERE WITH THE FILM. AND GIVEN WHAT WE SEE ON SCREEN, HULK HONESTLY BELIEVES THAT NOLAN SIMPLY GAVE UP ON MAKING HIS USUAL, IDEA-DRIVEN, PERSONALLY-STIMULATING FILM AND INSTEAD EMBRACED THE MORE MECHANICAL, FUNCTIONAL NEEDS OF CAPPING OFF THE STORY. HULK THINKS HE SUDDENLY EMBRACED WANTING TO MAKE FANS HAPPY. SO HE MADE IT ALL NEAT AND WRAPPED A BOW ON IT. HE TIED IT TOGETHER WITH BATMAN BEGINS AND MADE IT LIKE CLUNKY BOOKENDS TO THE TRILOGY. HE DIDN'T INGRAIN PLOT WITH CHARACTER OR THEME. HE LOADED THE FILM WITH SUCH STUNNING COINCIDENCES AND A LACK OF CARE FOR LOGIC, WHICH GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE FIRST 2/3 OF BATMAN BEGINS IS SORT OF ASTOUNDING... ALSO HULK COULDN'T HELP BUT LAUGH ANYTIME BANE SAID ANYTHING, SO THERE'S THAT.

THE THING TO ALSO UNDERSTAND IS THAT MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT PREVENT NOLAN FROM MAKING A BIG, ENTERTAINING MOVIE. HE'S TOO GOOD A FILMMAKER NOT TO KEEP YOUR ATTENTION WITH CINEMATIC GUSTO.

BUT THE DARK KNIGHT RISES IS NOT A MOVIE THAT IS IN ANY WAY REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT MAKES CHRISTOPHER NOLAN A SPECIAL FILMMAKER. HE'S SOMEONE WHO GAVE US THE PRESTIGE, DARK KNIGHT AND INCEPTION ALL RIGHT IN A DAMN ROW. AND THOSE MOVIES SO ESCHEW THE IDEAS OF MERELY BEING ENTERTAINING AND OBLIGATING FANS IN THE NAME OF GOING DOWN THE WELL OF FAR MORE FASCINATING CONCEPTS. AND THAT THEMATIC COMMITMENT AND UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON WE CAME TO LOVE HIM.

SHOULD WE BE ANGRY THAT HE SUDDENLY DECIDED TO OBLIGE US WITH THIS KIND OF BOMBASTIC FILM? HULK'S NOT SURE. AT ITS MOST INNOCENT, THE ENTIRE SITUATION SPEAKS TO THE NOTION THAT GIVING SOMEONE THE ENTERTAINMENT THEY WANT IS SOMETIMES FAR LESS EFFECTIVE THAN GIVING THEM THE EXPERIENCE THEY REALLY NEED (CUE ROLLING STONES). AT ITS MOST DISHEARTENING, HULK HAS TO ADMIT THAT HULK NEVER IMAGINED WATCHING A CYNICALLY MADE MOVIE FROM CHRISTOPHER NOLAN. ONE COULD ALMOST ARGUE HE'S STANDING BEFORE THE CROWD HAVING HIS "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?" MOMENT... OOF.

BUT THOSE ARE TWO WILDLY DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS, AREN'T THEY?

SAM STRANGE MADE THE GREAT COMMENT ON TWITTER THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE EVERYONE WAS TALKING ABOUT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FILMS. AND THAT REMARK IS RIGHT ON THE DAMN MONEY. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES IS FILLED WITH BOTH INSTIGATING AND COMPLACENT MOMENTS, BIZARRE CONTRADICTIONS, AND YET PUT ON DISPLAY WITH A SMOOTH, EVEN, ENTERTAINING TONE. WHICH ODDLY ENOUGH PUTS IT RIGHT IN LINE WITH A YEAR FULL OF CINEMATIC, SUPER-INTERESTING MIXED BAGS. BUT WE ARE OBSESSED WITH THE ONGOING ISSUE OF 'WORTH" IN THIS HUGE RANGE OF REACTIONS BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE IF IT'S GOOD OR NOT. DEVIN SPENT SO MUCH OF HIS WONDERFUL, ARTICULATE REVIEW WRESTLING WITH THAT VERY QUESTION. AND HULK DOESN'T THINK THAT QUESTION EVEN MATTERS. THE MOVIE IS BEYOND ALL THAT IN A WEIRD SORT OF WAY.

GOOD? BAD? THE MOVIE IS ONLY WHAT IT IS.

AN INTERESTING THING TO TALK ABOUT.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, THAT'S PRETTY NEAT.

The whole article is definitely worth a read.

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2012/07/26/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs.-the-dark-knight-rises

I think that question will always be something that gets speculated and wondered about by the fanbase. If there was ever a holy grail for fans of TDKT, besides an extended cut of TDKR, it would be any outline or ideas for a third movie that existed after TDK's script was written but before Heath passed away, scribbled somewhere in Goyer or Jonah's notebook. I'm pretty sure Goyer had already honed in on Bane in as a villain for the third movie in 2008, based on interviews around the TDK premiere where he hinted at not wanting to do The Riddler and wanting to go with a lesser-known villain like they did with BB. Like you said, Goyer also said that bringing The Joker back would've been a no-brainer if Heath had lived. Even during the BB days he criticized the Burton film for killing off the character and seemed keen on using him in both the second and third film . So based on all of that my feeling is we very well could've had a fairly similar movie in terms of the characters and overall structure, where The Joker still figured into the story somehow. Though I do think writing The Joker, especially Heath's Joker as a secondary character might've proven to be very tricky. Just his mere presence in the story has the danger of undervaluing whoever the main villain is supposed to be, because of how frickin' evil and brilliant he is. Judge Joker would've been a great moment.

Here's my attempt though. Okay, so what if Bane and Talia's plan is actually not to detonate the nuke, but really just use it as leverage out so they can stay in Gotham for as long as necessary, do their revolution and weed out all the corrupt, as long as that takes? But of course they'd still have a detonator as a last resort option in case the plan fails or the people revolt against them. I could see a finale where the detonator is the big McGuffin rather than the bomb itself. Enter The Joker who is looking to get his hands on the detonator so he can have one last cat and mouse game with Batman while going out in a blaze of glory with all of Gotham. He played along during the siege and did his part, but when the opportunity strikes he wants to exploit the most horrific aspect of the plan. Joker would be the 'final big bad' in this case, rather than Talia. I think in this scenario Joker would really just be looking to have the last laugh on everyone and that's about it. Just one final Batman/Joker confrontation to end the trilogy on. This would still have probably undermined Bane and/or Talia as villains, but people would've been more okay with it because it's The Joker.

We'll never know what might've been, but it's fun to speculate.

I like it! That direction definitely had the potential to be brilliant. And if TDK showed us anything, it's that the Joker doesn't need much screentime at all to have a major impact. Who knows, maybe if Ledger was alive TDKR would have been an entirely different beast. Hardy/Bane was a worthy successor, but you just can't top Ledger's Joker, and I think that's what it boils down to for the follow-up to TDK. As the recent AoU showed us, the villain can really make or break a movie.

 

[BatLobster]

Haha, thanks hafiz. Obviously it's easier than said than done to make that concept actually work smoothly in a movie, but I can't think of too many other ways to envision Joker working in a film with the same broad strokes as TDKR.

As for Film Critic Hulk's article, yeah I remember reading it in 2012. Sometimes I think he overanalyzes things and gets a bit carried away with his pet theories that don't always have much evidence to support them. But I do enjoy reading his essays. I think he's sorta half-right here.

My opinion is I do think Nolan has changed as a filmmaker over his last few movies, and it's largely the result of him being a father. It's made him more optimistic as a person. He's talked about this himself in recent interviews. My personal feeling is that while he definitely was personally affected by Ledger's death and probably considered not returning, I think what got excited him most about making the movie was finishing Bruce Wayne's story and giving this perpetually dark character a grand finale and a more hopeful ending. Look at the earliest interviews where he revealed that they were doing the third movie, he's always talking about how excited he is about the ending and what they had in store for the characters. IMO it was primarily this, along with massively ambitious scope of the movie that got him into "Let's finish this thing!" mode. So I completely disagree with Hulk that he didn't ingrain plot and themes with character, that was absolutely still there in spades imo. I do think that he loosened up a bit on the realism in favor of embracing scale and emotion over making a more cerebral film more than ever. That shouldn't be confused with him not caring about the movie though, I think that's a reflection how he's changed as a person and filmmaker. You see all of these trends continue with Interstellar, which doesn't have any of the baggage that finishing the Batman trilogy did. I also don't think making a movie with the primary goal of 'closing off loose ends' and making a "thematically interested movie" are mutually exclusive- in fact, the thematic demands of wrapping up a trilogy are the most complex in that the key themes of the first two films should ideally be addressed and resolved in some way, which I believe TDKR does make a clear effort to do.

So, while I think FilmCriticHulk is a very articulate guy (for a raging green monster), I don't necessarily agree with his assessment.

Another funny thing that I don't know has ever been pointed out. There was a Wally Pfister interview back in 2011, before they started shooting. He talked about how he had read the script and he was hyping it. He said that Nolan screened him BB and TDK in IMAX, and then had him read the script so he could see how the whole thing flowed as a trilogy. The funny thing is if you pay close attention to the interview, Wally says that the two of them disagree over which of the first two films and which approach they preferred more. And Wally pretty clearly says that he prefers TDK...which would make Nolan the resident BB fanboy of the team. Not what you'd expect, right? So again I disagree with Hulk here, because I think Nolan was genuinely excited about bringing it full circle back to Begins and not just doing so out of a sense of obligation.

*exhales*....sorry, I cannot seem to turn off "rambling" mode lately. At least it's not in all caps.

 

[Brother Jack]

It's always been a ridiculous assumption that Nolan didn't want to make a third Batman. I'm sure he considered not doing it as he had between the first two but you don't commit to such a huge production on a franchise you are intimate with unless you really want to. Especially when you have the option to step away. I see passion and drive when I look at the film. It's scale, production value, and thematic/narrative resonance.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Agreed... despite what Nolan says, I believe he always envisioned this story as a trilogy. Yes, each movie works as a stand-alone entity for the most part, with appropriate conclusions in each, but he had this begins, falls and rises concept mapped out from the beginning.

I saw passion, determination and exhaustion in every interview he did for The Dark Knight Rises. His association with this character was going on TEN years at this point and it would burn anybody out.

He may have stumbled with the movie in parts, but he still did it with the best of intentions for both his story and the character, not the pay cheque.

 

[Penguin]

I may like Begins and the Dark Knight more, but Rises is still a good movie. Like many have said before, it does have flaws, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad, expecting a perfect movie isn’t the wisest choice.

Also, I loved Batman/Bruce Wayne the most in Rises, he seemed much more interesting to me.

 

[Malicked]

It's my favorite threequel ever. I don't think I'm damning it with feint praise when I say that, cause I think making a third movie in a trilogy work is extremely tricky for a variety of reasons. And I think after TDK becoming an instant classic with a great ending that could've worked if it was left alone, coupled with Heath's Joker being off the table, the third Nolan Bat-film was arguably in the most difficult position that's ever faced the third film of a trilogy. There's a reason many doubted Nolan was even going to make the film. I think even Nolan had to know on some level that the only way to walk out on top was to stop after TDK, but I'm glad he chose to finish the story and swing for the fences anyway. Many directors wouldn't have had the balls. There was an interview from like 6 months or so before TDKR came out, I haven't been able to find it since, but I swear to God, Nolan said something like "I honestly don't know if I can say we've made a better movie than the second one, but we feel really great about where we've taken the characters to end our story and feel like we still have something to say about them", or something to that effect. I swear, that interview is out there somewhere.

I don't really consider ROTK in the same way because the story was all predetermined by the books and the movies were shot as one giant movie (which is an incredible feat in an of itself, but it's a different kind of thing).

Because there aren't that many good threequels, I do have huge fondness of ROTK as a 'third movie', though despite as you say it's a different beast altogether since it was filmed back to back with the other LOTR's movies.

Another funny thing that I don't know has ever been pointed out. There was a Wally Pfister interview back in 2011, before they started shooting. He talked about how he had read the script and he was hyping it. He said that Nolan screened him BB and TDK in IMAX, and then had him read the script so he could see how the whole thing flowed as a trilogy. The funny thing is if you pay close attention to the interview, Wally says that the two of them disagree over which of the first two films and which approach they preferred more. And Wally pretty clearly says that he prefers TDK...which would make Nolan the resident BB fanboy of the team. Not what you'd expect, right? So again I disagree with Hulk here, because I think Nolan was genuinely excited about bringing it full circle back to Begins and not just doing so out of a sense of obligation.

*exhales*....sorry, I cannot seem to turn off "rambling" mode lately. At least it's not in all caps.

I did get the impression that it was Pfister himself who really took control of the visual aesthetic of TDK as well as Rises. The grounded but still very much in the comic book genre of BB's visual aesthetic was all thrown out for making everything in the sequels as grounded and gritty as possible. It was the next level. Of course Nolan himself said when making BB he wanted things grounded but I now think the fantastical moments of that movie as well as that whole semi dystopian section in the Narrows was still all Nolan too. I guess his love for Ridley Scott's Blade Runner inspired some of those scenes in BB. Pfister hasn't been very complimentary towards the comic book genere in general and especially the way they're shot. He famously called The Avengers an appalling movie. So I always thought that Pfister in particular wasn't interesting in shooting a Batman movie as much as he was shooting a movie that just so happened to be populated with Nolan's Batman characters.

 

[JackWhite]

One thing is for sure - Catwoman wouldn't have been in the film. Jonah had to practically beg Chris to put her in TDKR. With a returning Joker, added with the new threat of Bane and Talia; I don't see her fitting in. But if that's the case, and Bruce still gets his redemption arc, does he just run off alone to start a new life? I think the ending could work with Alfred seeing him in another scenario in Italy or somewhere just hanging out amidst a crowd of people.

Nolan would have actually benefited from having one less love interest, because then we could have fully fleshed out a romance angle with one female character and Bruce Wayne. Although picturing a version of TDKR without Selina seems so wrong.

I don't think the Joker would have upstaged Bane had they shared the screen together. Had Heath lived the perspective of his performance would have been different. He would have still received mad props for his portrayal of the Joker, but it wouldn't be looked at like this dark cloud hovering over the film, like it ultimately was for TDK.

One of my real wonders is Blake. Didn't Goyer say, at some point after the release of TDK, that they had already envisioned the ending for the third film? I'm thinking Blake and the successor angle would have still been pivotal to the final chapter of Nolan's Bat-trilogy.

I also still think time restraints was going to be an issue, considering Nolan wanted to go bigger and bolder with characters and themes for the final film. But looking back on it, whatever Joker would have done in TDKR would have been so easy to accommodate for. He's just that type of character you can virtually throw into the mix and it works on so many levels.

 

[JackWhite]

It still tickles me how some say Nolan really embraced the character of Batman in TDKR, yet Bruce is barely in the suit, lol. If anything he really embraced the character in BB and especially in TDK, considering Bruce was in the suit more than he was outside of it.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I did get the impression that it was Pfister himself who really took control of the visual aesthetic of TDK as well as Rises

Don't but it, sorry. Nolan was absolutely the master of the visual asthetic of TDK/R. He was very vocal in Heat being the visual inspiration of TDK just as Blade Runner was of BB's.

Watch Interstellar, the way the camera sways and moves is very much like TDK/R, and it wasn't even shot by Pfister. You could trace the way the shots feel in a Nolan film all the way back to Following, which he shot with himself as the DP. It's all him.

Furthermore, Pfister has said that he dislikes shooting in the Imax aspect ratio, preferring cinemascope instead. He called the Imax format Nolan's format. Someone who took charge of a film's aesthetic wouldn't shoot in an aspect ratio he he doesn't prefer. Nor would he declare it someone else's format. Yet we know TDK was the first feature film to use the format and Rises has the longest amount of it in film.

 

[shauner111]

One thing is for sure - Catwoman wouldn't have been in the film. Jonah had to practically beg Chris to put her in TDKR. With a returning Joker, added with the new threat of Bane and Talia; I don't see her fitting in. But if that's the case, and Bruce still gets his redemption arc, does he just run off alone to start a new life? I think the ending could work with Alfred seeing him in another scenario in Italy or somewhere just hanging out amidst a crowd of people.

Nolan would have actually benefited from having one less love interest, because then we could have fully fleshed out a romance angle with one female character and Bruce Wayne. Although picturing a version of TDKR without Selina seems so wrong.

I don't think the Joker would have upstaged Bane had they shared the screen together. Had Heath lived the perspective of his performance would have been different. He would have still received mad props for his portrayal of the Joker, but it wouldn't be looked at like this dark cloud hovering over the film, like it ultimately was for TDK.

One of my real wonders is Blake. Didn't Goyer say, at some point after the release of TDK, that they had already envisioned the ending for the third film? I'm thinking Blake and the successor angle would have still been pivotal to the final chapter of Nolan's Bat-trilogy.

I also still think time restraints was going to be an issue, considering Nolan wanted to go bigger and bolder with characters and themes for the final film. But looking back on it, whatever Joker would have done in TDKR would have been so easy to accommodate for. He's just that type of character you can virtually throw into the mix and it works on so many levels.

And that's why i prefer Rises the way it is. Sure, Joker could have been thrown in there like Batlobster said, but this was a trilogy that tells the full story of this Batman. No Catwoman in any bat-universe is a crime to me. I'd rather Catwoman than two Joker roles. One was enough (even though we all would have liked more because we're greedy).

Im always curious about Heath's Joker locked up in Arkham, but his entrance and exit were perfect. His death made it impossible for Nolan to do anything else with the character and by chance (or destiny?), it makes Jokers exit that much more haunting and awesome. Ending with laughter as he's hanging in the air upside down by the Batman, with the rest of Gotham's citizens below him. He's on his way to Arkham Asylum, where he truly belongs even though his soul would feel completely trapped there. But it's what he deserves, at the very least.

I feel the same about Affleck. He needs a Joker but he also needs a Catwoman for it to feel complete to me.

 

[DA_Champion]

We're so blessed to be able to read so many film critic hulk articles.

What a brilliant man.

When he writes articles on movies I feel encouraged to go watch the movie, just so that I can read the article. It contributed to me to watch Ex Machina. Turned out to be a good idea regardless.

 

[hafizbat]

Haha, thanks hafiz. Obviously it's easier than said than done to make that concept actually work smoothly in a movie, but I can't think of too many other ways to envision Joker working in a film with the same broad strokes as TDKR.

As for Film Critic Hulk's article, yeah I remember reading it in 2012. Sometimes I think he overanalyzes things and gets a bit carried away with his pet theories that don't always have much evidence to support them. But I do enjoy reading his essays. I think he's sorta half-right here.

My opinion is I do think Nolan has changed as a filmmaker over his last few movies, and it's largely the result of him being a father. It's made him more optimistic as a person. He's talked about this himself in recent interviews. My personal feeling is that while he definitely was personally affected by Ledger's death and probably considered not returning, I think what got excited him most about making the movie was finishing Bruce Wayne's story and giving this perpetually dark character a grand finale and a more hopeful ending. Look at the earliest interviews where he revealed that they were doing the third movie, he's always talking about how excited he is about the ending and what they had in store for the characters. IMO it was primarily this, along with massively ambitious scope of the movie that got him into "Let's finish this thing!" mode. So I completely disagree with Hulk that he didn't ingrain plot and themes with character, that was absolutely still there in spades imo. I do think that he loosened up a bit on the realism in favor of embracing scale and emotion over making a more cerebral film more than ever. That shouldn't be confused with him not caring about the movie though, I think that's a reflection how he's changed as a person and filmmaker. You see all of these trends continue with Interstellar, which doesn't have any of the baggage that finishing the Batman trilogy did. I also don't think making a movie with the primary goal of 'closing off loose ends' and making a "thematically interested movie" are mutually exclusive- in fact, the thematic demands of wrapping up a trilogy are the most complex in that the key themes of the first two films should ideally be addressed and resolved in some way, which I believe TDKR does make a clear effort to do.

So, while I think FilmCriticHulk is a very articulate guy (for a raging green monster), I don't necessarily agree with his assessment.

Another funny thing that I don't know has ever been pointed out. There was a Wally Pfister interview back in 2011, before they started shooting. He talked about how he had read the script and he was hyping it. He said that Nolan screened him BB and TDK in IMAX, and then had him read the script so he could see how the whole thing flowed as a trilogy. The funny thing is if you pay close attention to the interview, Wally says that the two of them disagree over which of the first two films and which approach they preferred more. And Wally pretty clearly says that he prefers TDK...which would make Nolan the resident BB fanboy of the team. Not what you'd expect, right? So again I disagree with Hulk here, because I think Nolan was genuinely excited about bringing it full circle back to Begins and not just doing so out of a sense of obligation.

*exhales*....sorry, I cannot seem to turn off "rambling" mode lately. At least it's not in all caps.

Very nice post You didn't disappoint

 

[The Shape]

It still tickles me how some say Nolan really embraced the character of Batman in TDKR, yet Bruce is barely in the suit, lol. If anything he really embraced the character in BB and especially in TDK, considering Bruce was in the suit more than he was outside of it.

It completely embraces the idea of the Batman and Bruce's struggle to become Batman again. The number of seconds he is the suit isn't the only indication of characterization or focus.