The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - Part 156

[Dede]

Filmcritichulk: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Rises is a camp masterpiece

I thought it was an interesting piece. Nolan doesn't know how to direct pulp. It's not his thing. So he directed Rises, which is pulp through and through, with the utmost seriousness, resulting in glorious camp. I never saw it this way. But he makes a good case.

It’s not campy at all. Batman begins is the closest to camp

 

[Travesty]

It’s not campy at all. Batman begins is the closest to camp

 

[The Joker]

No he's right. Its not even remotely close to being camp.

 

[Dede]

And I wouldn’t even say begins is very campy at all it’s just it’s the least dour of the trilogy and has more quips Than the next 2

 

[BatLobster]

Oh, I saw read essay. Didn't realize it was Film Critic Hulk who wrote it. I enjoy and respect his work, but I completely disagree with him on this.

Bane's voice IS a bit campy. Even Hardy said "there's a bit of camp to it" when describing what he was going for. But that's why it's so fun to impersonate. I think the movie is definitely "in" on it, which FCH is trying to argue it isn't, hence it being 'unintentional' camp.

Where I disagree with him is I think TDKR still fits alongside the other two in the trilogy pretty well in terms of the tone. I mean, the Bat-voice throughout the whole thing could be considered a bit campy and OTT in the same way. But I think he's absolutely wrong that the films are not "pulpy". They all are. The TDK prologue is pulpy as f***, with all the bank robbers talking in those old-timey gangster voices. I've always felt they had a lot of pulp in them. And all the films have that very dry, British sense of humor to them where the jokes aren't usually "ha ha" funny, but they do help let the air out of scenes. So basically I think whatever argument he's trying to make here, he would have to retroactively apply to the whole trilogy.

The thing about TDKR is it just turns the volume up on everything in the previous films, because it's a much bigger film that combines aspects of the prior two. That's why I've always argued that these movies are still a lot of fun despite their super-serious and quasi-"realistic" exterior. I think a lot of people still fundamentally misunderstand the intent behind grounding Batman in a more real world setting. It's not simply to take the fun out of it. It's because (imo) there's an inherent fun and excitement of putting larger than life iconic characters and situations in a world that vaguely resembles our own. It's not for everyone and I get that it.

One side note though. I do think some of the Bane re-dubs (mainly the prologue and Blackgate) are really weird and obvious, which does unfortunately aid FCH's argument. I still want to know what happened there, because it sure seems like WB freaked out about the prologue reaction and got hands-on there. Which is a shame, because I really liked the original prologue voice.

 

[Dede]

The Dark Knight Rises Voted Best Film Of The Decade''



It beat Logan and Joker <3 <3 <3

I’d say tdkr is aging well

 

[Dede]

Oh, I saw read essay. Didn't realize it was Film Critic Hulk who wrote it. I enjoy and respect his work, but I completely disagree with him on this.

Bane's voice IS a bit campy. Even Hardy said "there's a bit of camp to it" when describing what he was going for. But that's why it's so fun to impersonate. I think the movie is definitely "in" on it, which FCH is trying to argue it isn't, hence it being 'unintentional' camp.

Where I disagree with him is I think TDKR still fits alongside the other two in the trilogy pretty well in terms of the tone. I mean, the Bat-voice throughout the whole thing could be considered a bit campy and OTT in the same way. But I think he's absolutely wrong that the films are not "pulpy". They all are. The TDK prologue is pulpy as f***, with all the bank robbers talking in those old-timey gangster voices. I've always felt they had a lot of pulp in them. And all the films have that very dry, British sense of humor to them where the jokes aren't usually "ha ha" funny, but they do help let the air out of scenes. So basically I think whatever argument he's trying to make here, he would have to retroactively apply to the whole trilogy.

The thing about TDKR is it just turns the volume up on everything in the previous films, because it's a much bigger film that combines aspects of the prior two. That's why I've always argued that these movies are still a lot of fun despite their super-serious and quasi-"realistic" exterior. I think a lot of people still fundamentally misunderstand the intent behind grounding Batman in a more real world setting. It's not simply to take the fun out of it. It's because (imo) there's an inherent fun and excitement of putting larger than life iconic characters and situations in a world that vaguely resembles our own. It's not for everyone and I get that it.

One side note though. I do think some of the Bane re-dubs (mainly the prologue and Blackgate) are really weird and obvious, which does unfortunately aid FCH's argument. I still want to know what happened there, because it sure seems like WB freaked out about the prologue reaction and got hands-on there. Which is a shame, because I really liked the original prologue voice.

I think his voice is a little campy in the same way heaths joker voice could be hell even Vader’s . It’s bravado

 

[BatLobster]

I think his voice is a little campy in the same way heaths joker voice could be hell even Vader’s . It’s bravado

Yup. Joker and Bane were the most "comic book-y" villains of the trilogy, for sure.

 

[Herofan]

Filmcritichulk: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Rises is a camp masterpiece

I thought it was an interesting piece. Nolan doesn't know how to direct pulp. It's not his thing. So he directed Rises, which is pulp through and through, with the utmost seriousness, resulting in glorious camp. I never saw it this way. But he makes a good case.

I've got to complain, campy is way-overused and misused by a lot of fans, some seem to think any and every comic relief scene is campy and may make the whole film pretty campy.

I think the best definition of camp is fairly simple but specific-overdone & excessive in a way that is self-mocking. The idea that it is failed seriousness seems at best an odd and dated and maybe snobby one, I guess I can see how it can come from naivety+exaggeration+seriousness but that seems a very rare combination and even more so to combine them intentionally. It's also not really entertaining, Plan 9 aside (although even there some of the actors probably did exaggerate intentionally). By that, B66 wasn't campy, it was a very intentional and non-naive spoofing of naivety and seriousness.

From my definition, there's an element of campiness in Bane but there also was in the Joker, that they're both so Black Hat-wearing, nearly mustache-twirling Evil and hypocritical (Bane a bit more in talking more to the public about it), claiming that he made the people free and that if they don't follow his orders he'll blow them up. Also maybe in that, at least in retrospect, it's pretty obvious that Catwoman would initially betray Batman and that highly-focused-on Miranda Tate will likely end up being twist evil.

I don't see how Bane's agenda, though murky, was particularly less clear than the Joker's, Joker's wasn't clear until the interrogation scene (halfway through) or, later on, the hospital scene.

 

[BatLobster]

I've got to complain, campy is way-overused and misused by a lot of fans, some seem to think any and every comic relief scene is campy and may make the whole film pretty campy.

I think the best definition of camp is fairly simple but specific-overdone & excessive in a way that is self-mocking. The idea that it is failed seriousness seems at best an odd and dated and maybe snobby one, I guess I can see how it can come from naivety+exaggeration+seriousness but that seems a very rare combination and even more so to combine them intentionally. It's also not really entertaining, Plan 9 aside (although even there some of the actors probably did exaggerate intentionally). By that, B66 wasn't campy, it was a very intentional and non-naive spoofing of naivety and seriousness.

From my definition, there's an element of campiness in Bane but there also was in the Joker, that they're both so Black Hat-wearing, nearly mustache-twirling Evil and hypocritical (Bane a bit more in talking more to the public about it), claiming that he made the people free and that if they don't follow his orders he'll blow them up. Also maybe in that, at least in retrospect, it's pretty obvious that Catwoman would initially betray Batman and that highly-focused-on Miranda Tate will likely end up being twist evil.

I don't see how Bane's agenda, though murky, was particularly less clear than the Joker's, Joker's wasn't clear until the interrogation scene (halfway through) or, later on, the hospital scene.

Well said! The fatal flaw I see in FHC's argument is that it presupposes that somehow Hardy and Nolan weren't in on the theatricality and strangeness of Bane's voice. But they clearly were/are. Nolan has even talked about how he and his crew still impersonate it on set to this day and does a killer Bane impression.

So yeah, I like FHC, but he really just used a lot of words there in an attempt to say "serious filmmaker accidentally made something silly". I don't think it's that simple at all. Hardy's Bane feels like the closest thing to a mustache twirling Bond villain in these movies, and we all know how big of an influence Bond was on Nolan and his Batman films. And despite the voice being wacky, he still manages to be terrifying. The disparity between the sometimes jovial, gentlemanly nature of his voice and the brutality of his actions is what makes it work.

 

[shauner111]

Anytime Nolan wears his Bond influences on his sleeves, or when the Doomsday clock trope comes in full swing...that’s when the goofiness is turned up to 11. Rises doubles down on the Bond influence (right out of the gate we’re shown a prologue that could just as well have been for the latest 007). And Batman has to stop an atom bomb in its finale.

His gangsters & cops were also hammy & one dimensional as hell throughout the entire trilogy. Not unlike the Burton movies. How about when Lau and his men are trying to handle Batman in Hong Kong? It’s goofy as hell. So I wouldn’t use the word campy or even separate Rises from the pack, but I get where it’s coming from.

I remember watching the Burton movies immediately after watching The Dark Knight (back in 2008), and it was jarring. “Wow they really were cartoony..”. I never thought i’d say this, but the same thing happened to me after Joker this past October. Next day I put on The Dark Knight and it played more like a MCU movie by comparison. With some distance I can see the “unintentional comedy” pouring out of TDK trilogy. I am convinced Nolan thought the ferries were super serious but it certainly does not play that way. Or the press conference with Harvey Dent. Daggett is just as over the top as Max Schreck. Everything that Nolan tries to do with Scarecrow in Batman Begins turns out to be goofy when I’m positive he was going for straight horror.

 

[Travesty]

I like this new shauner. 10/10

 

[The Joker]

Oh, I saw read essay. Didn't realize it was Film Critic Hulk who wrote it. I enjoy and respect his work, but I completely disagree with him on this.

Bane's voice IS a bit campy. Even Hardy said "there's a bit of camp to it" when describing what he was going for. But that's why it's so fun to impersonate. I think the movie is definitely "in" on it, which FCH is trying to argue it isn't, hence it being 'unintentional' camp.

Where I disagree with him is I think TDKR still fits alongside the other two in the trilogy pretty well in terms of the tone. I mean, the Bat-voice throughout the whole thing could be considered a bit campy and OTT in the same way. But I think he's absolutely wrong that the films are not "pulpy". They all are. The TDK prologue is pulpy as f***, with all the bank robbers talking in those old-timey gangster voices. I've always felt they had a lot of pulp in them. And all the films have that very dry, British sense of humor to them where the jokes aren't usually "ha ha" funny, but they do help let the air out of scenes. So basically I think whatever argument he's trying to make here, he would have to retroactively apply to the whole trilogy.

The thing about TDKR is it just turns the volume up on everything in the previous films, because it's a much bigger film that combines aspects of the prior two. That's why I've always argued that these movies are still a lot of fun despite their super-serious and quasi-"realistic" exterior. I think a lot of people still fundamentally misunderstand the intent behind grounding Batman in a more real world setting. It's not simply to take the fun out of it. It's because (imo) there's an inherent fun and excitement of putting larger than life iconic characters and situations in a world that vaguely resembles our own. It's not for everyone and I get that it.

One side note though. I do think some of the Bane re-dubs (mainly the prologue and Blackgate) are really weird and obvious, which does unfortunately aid FCH's argument. I still want to know what happened there, because it sure seems like WB freaked out about the prologue reaction and got hands-on there. Which is a shame, because I really liked the original prologue voice.

Well said! The fatal flaw I see in FHC's argument is that it presupposes that somehow Hardy and Nolan weren't in on the theatricality and strangeness of Bane's voice. But they clearly were/are. Nolan has even talked about how he and his crew still impersonate it on set to this day and does a killer Bane impression.

So yeah, I like FHC, but he really just used a lot of words there in an attempt to say "serious filmmaker accidentally made something silly". I don't think it's that simple at all. Hardy's Bane feels like the closest thing to a mustache twirling Bond villain in these movies, and we all know how big of an influence Bond was on Nolan and his Batman films. And despite the voice being wacky, he still manages to be terrifying. The disparity between the sometimes jovial, gentlemanly nature of his voice and the brutality of his actions is what makes it work.

Truth.

 

[Herofan]

I remember watching the Burton movies immediately after watching The Dark Knight (back in 2008), and it was jarring. “Wow they really were cartoony..”

Well there's nothing wrong or even really unusual with being stylized or even not-very-restrained rather than completely grounded (there's a big gap between being not-very-restrained and completely unrestrained like TLJ in BF), I don't think that necessarily makes it goofy or self-mocking.

I never thought i’d say this, but the same thing happened to me after Joker this past October. Next day I put on The Dark Knight and it played more like a MCU movie by comparison. With some distance I can see the “unintentional comedy” pouring out of TDK trilogy. I am convinced Nolan thought the ferries were super serious but it certainly does not play that way.

To me the ferries scenes always seemed off, like trying too hard and the themes being too earnest, feeling pompous or indeed goofy.

 

[BatLobster]

Anytime Nolan wears his Bond influences on his sleeves, or when the Doomsday clock trope comes in full swing...that’s when the goofiness is turned up to 11. Rises doubles down on the Bond influence (right out of the gate we’re shown a prologue that could just as well have been for the latest 007). And Batman has to stop an atom bomb in its finale.

His gangsters & cops were also hammy & one dimensional as hell throughout the entire trilogy. Not unlike the Burton movies. How about when Lau and his men are trying to handle Batman in Hong Kong? It’s goofy as hell. So I wouldn’t use the word campy or even separate Rises from the pack, but I get where it’s coming from.

I remember watching the Burton movies immediately after watching The Dark Knight (back in 2008), and it was jarring. “Wow they really were cartoony..”. I never thought i’d say this, but the same thing happened to me after Joker this past October. Next day I put on The Dark Knight and it played more like a MCU movie by comparison. With some distance I can see the “unintentional comedy” pouring out of TDK trilogy. I am convinced Nolan thought the ferries were super serious but it certainly does not play that way. Or the press conference with Harvey Dent. Daggett is just as over the top as Max Schreck. Everything that Nolan tries to do with Scarecrow in Batman Begins turns out to be goofy when I’m positive he was going for straight horror.

I mean, I kinda know what you mean but at the same time I think we were always pretty cognizant of the fact that the Nolan movies had goofy stuff in them, especially with some of the extras, the bat-voice etc., cheesy dialogue, etc. I never thought these were Scorcese movies, I always thought of them as kind of a throwback to 70s/80s blockbusters with a darker edge to them and some weighty modern themes to chew on.

I sort of had a similar experience re-watching Begins (in delicious 4k) the other night. It was definitely showing some warts for me. I mean I know the movie like the back of my hand, but the elements I like less- IE Rachel, the third act, etc. were sticking out to me a bit more. Still, I don't inherently oppose some of the goofier stuff...it's just kind of hit and miss for me. Like Batman bombing his way out of the Arkham prison cell..."Excuse me." I mean, it's a silly, kind of throwaway moment that doesn't need to be there. That's an example of one that doesn't bother me and still gets a smirk out of me. On the other hand...I still don't care for the "Nice Coat" moment after "I'm Batman." That feels pretty MCU. But again, I like the word "pulp" when describing this kind of stuff. I think there's an inherent pulpiness in these films that went somewhat overlooked because the more grounded aesthetic was in such stark contrast to any of the previous movies, and so much of it was played with a completely straight face. At the same time I think some of the pulpy aspects helped endear the movies to me. My friends and have always loved quoting some of the over the top lines. Like "YOU AND YA FRIENDS ARE DEAAAAD!" , "MAH DOGS ARE HUUNNGRAYY", etc. There are times when that 80s action flick vibe carries through in a way that's just a ton of fun, imo. I think TDK probably does this best.

And at the same time, I do think it's just part of a pattern with Batman movies with how we see them differently over time as the franchise evolves. I had the same experience you described with re-watching the Burton films post-Nolan and thinking "omg these are so cartoony". But eventually that passed too, and I've kind of re-fallen in love with them, flaws and all. You can start to appreciate the the pop cultural/historical significance of it a bit more with some distance, even as you take off the fanboy goggles and are more open to looking at what has aged well and what hasn't.

I will still take TDK over Joker though. I don't have much of a desire to revisit Joker, as well-done as it was. I just think I'm inherently more engaged by a classic Batman/Joker story than a Joker origin story that I never really cared to see. It's a beautifully done film though, don't get me wrong.

 

[The Joker]

Wait... comic book movies with the lead guy running around in a cape and cowl bat suit had goofy stuff in them? Well I'll be damned. The shock of it all. I need to sit down.

 

[BatLobster]

Wait... comic book movies with the lead guy running around in a cape and cowl bat suit had goofy stuff in them? Well I'll be damned. The shock of it all. I need to sit down.

so true.

I think it's just a testament to how impactful and meaningful the movies were to a lot of people that sometimes people are uncomfortable acknowledging/embracing that fact.

And I'll be honest, I definitely think our age and perspective, the evolution of how comic book stuff is accepted in the mainstream plays a hand in that. I was 19-20 when Begins came out. I remember being the only one of my friends who was actively hyped for the film. They were all like "Ugh, another Batman movie? Really?" And mind you, this was still post- Spider-Man 1&2, X-Men 1&2. So the idea that comic book movies were cool again and could be done well was fresh in everyone's minds. A lot of people still just wrote off the Batman character cinematically after B&R.

But then they all loved it, and everyone came all aboard the Batman hype train for the following 7 years with me. So the idea that a movie could come along and make your average movie fan take Batman more seriously again...that meant a lot to me at the time, as I'm sure it did for a lot of us. It's easy to forget that "rebooting" wasn't even a thing when Begins happened. Just the very idea of restarting an existing franchise from scratch was a somewhat radical approach.

 

[Brother Jack]

I've thought for a long time that the realistic, serious tone of TDKT was overstated. They were certainly more realistic and serious than the previous Batman movies, and many other superhero flicks, but some people held them up to an almost documentary-level of realism. That word "realism" in of itself became overused, partially by Nolan himself, where it was this easy adjective to use to describe the approach the films were taking, even though it was never entirely accurate. It was more about the illusion of realism than anything.

 

[shauner111]

I’m not saying it’s horrible or shocking to have goofy moments in Nolan’s Batman movies. I’m sure there will be some of that in Reeves’ take. But I do think Burton intended for those moments to jump out at the screen, while Nolan played it straight sometimes...and yet the goofiness still jumps out.

The main issue I have with Nolan’s movies now when I rewatch each of them, is the tonal inconsistencies. I don’t find it’s as smooth as it used to feel. Tonal shifts at the wrong moments, pretty late in the game, or even outlandish plot devices/macguffins in the third act (when he spent most of a movie setting the world up as a fairly realistic place). I don’t want Reeves to fall into those blockbuster traps. Keep it the same size, stick with a genre, display a tone to the audience within the first 20 minutes and don’t tip the scale to one side once you get to the halfway mark.

 

[Kane52630]

Jokerbros got to shauner... So sad.

 

[Dede]

I’m not saying it’s horrible or shocking to have goofy moments in Nolan’s Batman movies. I’m sure there will be some of that in Reeves’ take. But I do think Burton intended for those moments to jump out at the screen, while Nolan played it straight sometimes...and yet the goofiness still jumps out.

The main issue I have with Nolan’s movies now when I rewatch each of them, is the tonal inconsistencies. I don’t find it’s as smooth as it used to feel. Tonal shifts at the wrong moments, pretty late in the game, or even outlandish plot devices/macguffins in the third act (when he spent most of a movie setting the world up as a fairly realistic place). I don’t want Reeves to fall into those blockbuster traps. Keep it the same size, stick with a genre, display a tone to the audience within the first 20 minutes and don’t tip the scale to one side once you get to the halfway mark.

Do you still love all 3 films in the trilogy ?

 

[The Joker]

so true.

I think it's just a testament to how impactful and meaningful the movies were to a lot of people that sometimes people are uncomfortable acknowledging/embracing that fact.

And I'll be honest, I definitely think our age and perspective, the evolution of how comic book stuff is accepted in the mainstream plays a hand in that. I was 19-20 when Begins came out. I remember being the only one of my friends who was actively hyped for the film. They were all like "Ugh, another Batman movie? Really?" And mind you, this was still post- Spider-Man 1&2, X-Men 1&2. So the idea that comic book movies were cool again and could be done well was fresh in everyone's minds. A lot of people still just wrote off the Batman character cinematically after B&R.

But then they all loved it, and everyone came all aboard the Batman hype train for the following 7 years with me. So the idea that a movie could come along and make your average movie fan take Batman more seriously again...that meant a lot to me at the time, as I'm sure it did for a lot of us. It's easy to forget that "rebooting" wasn't even a thing when Begins happened. Just the very idea of restarting an existing franchise from scratch was a somewhat radical approach.

I've thought for a long time that the realistic, serious tone of TDKT was overstated. They were certainly more realistic and serious than the previous Batman movies, and many other superhero flicks, but some people held them up to an almost documentary-level of realism. That word "realism" in of itself became overused, partially by Nolan himself, where it was this easy adjective to use to describe the approach the films were taking, even though it was never entirely accurate. It was more about the illusion of realism than anything.

Exactly. Any talk of tonal inconsistencies is just not there on the screen, IMO. The movies stay consistent. In fact all three movies have some outlandish set pieces early in the story that set the tone for what is to come. BB has the secret ninja lair in the Himalayas that comes to an explosive end. TDK opens with Joker's outlandish bank robbery. TDKR opens with Bane's annihilation of an entire C.I.A. aircraft while still in the air. Never mind that the center of the entire stories is a millionaire running around in a Bat costume, and driving an outlandish souped up black tank.

If the movies were riddled with tonal inconsistencies they'd have been hammered for them. Nothing worse than a movie that doesn't know what it wants to be. But Nolan had his hand firmly on the rail when it came to tone.

 

[shauner111]

Do you still love all 3 films in the trilogy ?

Yes of course. I’ll always love all three movies. But i’ve ALWAYS said the movies weren’t flawless.

Jokerbros got to shauner... So sad.

Huh?

 

[Kane52630]

 

[shauner111]

Lol I don’t get it.

Joker is a good movie. It’s not a masterpiece, but I don’t think there’s ever been a comic book movie that is. Yes, my taste in movies have changed a lot but that doesn’t mean I suddenly dislike TDK trilogy. But i’ve always seen shifts in those movies. It took me years to get to a point where I liked the third act of Batman Begins or the introduction of Scarecrow. Some actors are aware that they’re in a Chris Nolan movie. Some think they’re in a silly Batman movie and play it that way. There’s a clash that happens in my opinion. Certain things are brought into each film that come out of nowhere. I want Reeves to stay away from that.

Btw I hate this trend where ppl act like only film bros or whatever can like the Joker. As if it’s an insult. Don’t follow the crowd. There’s enough of that going on, on twitter.