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

[Gothamsknight]

I understand the issues with the 8-year retirement, it's a very controversial choice by Nolan, but it works for me. Since the beginning this was markted as the final movie in the trilogy, so it makes sense to finish it in a way that evoked Miller's TDKR. Plus, it added some emotional weight different from any other superhero movie I remember.

Yup, and it was refreshing to see a trilogy like this have a beginning, middle, and end. It was more focused on the story being told in front of us than trying to fill in things we weren't gonna see.

 

[BatLobster]

Was watching TDK last night and man one thing I absolutely love and admire about that film is how economical the storytelling is. So much setup/payoff. No wasted moments. And there are easily enough characters and storylines that it could've been stretched out to a 3 hour film.

I guess pretty soon it's going to be a mid-length Batman movie (which is hilarious considering how often people used to rip on TDK for being too long), but that movie never felt its length to me. That thing MOVES, and it's pretty much edge of your seat for most of the runtime. It's a ride.

I'm definitely not against long films, but I can't lie I'm a little nervous about The Batman's runtime. I think it could go very right or very wrong. My biggest concern about it is I just think the story seems very predictable for something that is supposed to be a noir mystery. I just hope it feels necessary and not like the movie is just indulging in stretching things out for the sake of being sprawling.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I always said that The Dark Knight was an incredibly tight 2 and a half hour rollercoaster of a movie that never stops. It worked perfectly and the runtime was just where it needed to be. For The Batman, I have faith that the reason it's so long is because it's what it should be. From what I've read, Warner Bros allowed the runtime based on what was apparently "fantastic reception" at test screenings, so if that is the case, then maybe the movie will indeed justify the runtime. Jett, from Batman on Film, knows some people who attended the screenings and they said similar things too.

 

[BatLobster]

I always said that The Dark Knight was an incredibly tight 2 and a half hour rollercoaster of a movie that never stops. It worked perfectly and the runtime was just where it needed to be. For The Batman, I have faith that the reason it's so long is because it's what it should be. From what I've read, Warner Bros allowed the runtime based on what was apparently "fantastic reception" at test screenings, so if that is the case, then maybe the movie will indeed justify the runtime. Jett, from Batman on Film, knows some people who attended the screenings and they said similar things too.

The thing that's bothering me, is like....is this just the norm now? We have a 4 hour Justice League, a 3 hour Batman film that's the first film in the franchise. This is contributing to setting up some sort of fan expectation that a DC movie can't be epic and serious unless it's in the 3-4 hour range.

I mostly dislike it from a precedent-setting standpoint. I also think they should've given themselves more room to go longer in the sequels without getting into unbearably long territory.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather the movie be 3 hours and breathe than 2:20 and compromised, but for now I can't help but wonder if this is maybe just a bit overindulgent.

 

[Gothamsknight]

The thing that's bothering me, is like....is this just the norm now? We have a 4 hour Justice League, a 3 hour Batman film that's the first film in the franchise. This is contributing to setting up some sort of fan expectation that a DC movie can't be epic and serious unless it's in the 3-4 hour range.

I mostly dislike it from a precedent-setting standpoint. I also think they should've given themselves more room to go longer in the sequels without getting into unbearably long territory.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather the movie be 3 hours and breathe than 2:20 and compromised, but for now I can't help but wonder if this is maybe just a bit overindulgent.

I totally get what you mean, and I actually mostly agree. I think it's probabaly a combo of WB promising free reign to Reeves along with the test screening reception. I don't know if this will set a precedent, but it is different to have a first film in a trilogy be so long. To be fair, there have been long franchises that started out with long movies too that ended up having shorter run times as each installment went on. Harry Potter I believe started out with 2 hrs and 40 for the first 2 if I'm not mistaken. Deathly hallows part 2 was only 2 hours.

At the same time, there's a lot of movies that don't need to be that long. Not Aquaman, not The Suicide Squad, And certainly not the 4 hour Snyder cut which was ridiculous. But Im trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. Hopefully, the runtime is because there's a story to be told.

 

[BatLobster]

I totally get what you mean, and I actually mostly agree. I think it's probabaly a combo of WB promising free reign to Reeves along with the test screening reception. I don't know if this will set a precedent, but it is different to have a first film in a trilogy be so long. To be fair, there have been long franchises that started out with long movies too that ended up having shorter run times as each installment went on. Harry Potter I believe started out with 2 hrs and 40 for the first 2 if I'm not mistaken. Deathly hallows part 2 was only 2 hours.

At the same time, there's a lot of movies that don't need to be that long. Not Aquaman, not The Suicide Squad, And certainly not the 4 hour Snyder cut which was ridiculous. But Im trying to give the benefit of the doubt here. Hopefully, the runtime is because there's a story to be told.

I hear you man, and I mean I honestly don't have a problem with sitting down for 3 hours to drink in some Batman goodness haha. I'd gladly see it by myself. It just becomes more of a tough sell when it comes to trying to get people to go with me who aren't that excited for it. And ideally I like to be able to enjoy this stuff with the people in my life and not feel as if I'm dragging them along. That's what makes it more special for me. It's just one of those things where, when you're swinging that big, you really can't miss because you're painting a huge target on your back by demanding so much of the audience's time. With trailers it's almost like 3 1/2 hours. My overall feeling is just...has this been earned?

If anything, it's only been earned by the franchise's great history as a whole. I'd argue that a 3 hour Batman movie wouldn't even be possible without films like TDK leaving such a cultural mark and expanding the idea of what's possible in this genre. But could you imagine the flack Batman Begins or TDK would've gotten at the time if they were 3 hours? Let alone would WB have even okay'd that at the time? That's what bugs me.

 

[Blade Hoarder]

Given that WB’a leadership is entirely different in 2019 than it was in 2003/4, I am not that shocked. This is the same leadership that gave us an R rated Joker movie after all.

and I’m not that fussed about the runtime. Matt Reeve’s previous work has shown that he is as economical a storyteller as Nolan. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he insisted that the Batman needed three hours. He isn’t Snyder.

 

[Filmfreak]

A detective noir story that's only the first of more to come and doesn't seem so action-driven, doesn't really convince me that needs to have an Endgame runtime. For now. I haven't seen the movie and I too am willing to give Reeves the benefit of a doubt, but I'm also a bit concerned with this current trend of 2,5-3 hours films we are constantly getting for the last couple of years, like others have mentioned. I support creator's vision 100% but history has proven that sometimes a small leash might actually make things turn out for the best. Even in huge names like Nolan and Scorsese. But we'll see. I'm not judging before I actually see it. Just some thoughts to keep for comparison's sake later.

 

[BatLobster]

A detective noir story that's only the first of more to come and doesn't seem so action-driven, doesn't really convince me that needs to have an Endgame runtime. For now. I haven't seen the movie and I too am willing to give Reeves the benefit of a doubt, but I'm also a bit concerned with this current trend of 2,5-3 hours films we are constantly getting for the last couple of years, like others have mentioned. I support creator's vision 100% but history has proven that sometimes a small leash might actually make things turn out for the best. Even in huge names like Nolan and Scorsese. But we'll see. I'm not judging before I actually see it. Just some thoughts to keep for comparison's sake later.

Yeah, I mean I don't want to make it seem like I'm coming down too hard on Reeves or doubting that he's making the absolute most of the runtime. I hope I don't feel the length at all when I watch it. It just would be a shame if it becomes apparent there's a tighter movie in there. Because there are going to be people and critics who are primed to be harsher on it simply for being long, whether that's fair or not. And yeah-- if you look at all the noir classics that this film is drawing inspiration from, most are in the 2 hour range. There's nothing about the genre this film is playing in that inherently demands the story be so long.

I agree too, some level of feedback and notes is a healthy part of the process. Sometimes a few restrictions can bring about some creative solutions that lead to a better product. According to ViewerAnon the studio was concerned about the tone and length, and it was the test screening feedback that swayed them. That part is encouraging. I'm not judging before I see it either, but I think it's more than fair to raise an eyebrow at the first film in the series knocking at 3 hours. It is kind of uncharted territory for the genre after all.

 

[The Shape]

I am getting the sense that WB (and maybe Reeves) might have "Oscars" on the mind for this film.

 

[Gothamsknight]

A detective noir story that's only the first of more to come and doesn't seem so action-driven, doesn't really convince me that needs to have an Endgame runtime. For now. I haven't seen the movie and I too am willing to give Reeves the benefit of a doubt, but I'm also a bit concerned with this current trend of 2,5-3 hours films we are constantly getting for the last couple of years, like others have mentioned. I support creator's vision 100% but history has proven that sometimes a small leash might actually make things turn out for the best. Even in huge names like Nolan and Scorsese. But we'll see. I'm not judging before I actually see it. Just some thoughts to keep for comparison's sake later.

Yeah, I mean I don't want to make it seem like I'm coming down too hard on Reeves or doubting that he's making the absolute most of the runtime. I hope I don't feel the length at all when I watch it. It just would be a shame if it becomes apparent there's a tighter movie in there. Because there are going to be people and critics who are primed to be harsher on it simply for being long, whether that's fair or not. And yeah-- if you look at all the noir classics that this film is drawing inspiration from, most are in the 2 hour range. There's nothing about the genre this film is playing in that inherently demands the story be so long.

I agree too, some level of feedback and notes is a healthy part of the process. Sometimes a few restrictions can bring about some creative solutions that lead to a better product. According to ViewerAnon the studio was concerned about the tone and length, and it was the test screening feedback that swayed them. That part is encouraging. I'm not judging before I see it either, but I think it's more than fair to raise an eyebrow at the first film in the series knocking at 3 hours. It is kind of uncharted territory for the genre after all.

I think all of these concerns are valid tbh. I trust Reeves a ton, and I think we are in the best hands since Nolan, but until we see the movie, there's obviously always gonna be a part of us that worry about things because we haven't seen the film yet. I'm confident the movie is gonna be great and justify the runtime, of course, but still. I actually think Endgame didn't justify it's runtime (and the Snyder cut even less so), but Matt Reeves is also a far better director than Zack Snyder, and, yes, the Russos as well. I have faith that the run time will brisk by quickly and that we all will be eager to get back into that world as soon as possible. One of the things that stuck out to me with the test screenings is that according to ViewerAnon, the audience that watched it was not the "Batman fans that gave Batman vs Superman a standing ovation", but a group of normal people from the GA that gave a great response to the film once it was over. That's very encouraging to me. So long as the movie is great, the 3 hours won't matter to me.

 

[Filmfreak]

I agree about Endgame and the Snyder Cut, though I get the creative choice for the latter, since it's a different cut of a preexisting movie and not the one and only cinematic version of a film. I know it's probably an unpopular opinion but I would certainly add The Irishman to that list as well. And then you have films like Blade Runner 2049, No Time to Die or The Lord of the Rings extended cuts that more than justify their runtime. Or some examples like Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises where they were so ambitious it felt they might have needed to be even longer. I would personally trim a few parts of the final act of Inception, though.

The Batman could go either way. And the people who watched it and liked it certainly know more than I do at the moment. I'm still a bit wary of this, but I will surely be glad to be proven wrong if the pacing and duration feel completely natural, which could very much be the case.

 

[BatLobster]

Jesus, this still f***s so hard.

 

[Gothamsknight]

As super excited as I am, I will say that I am a bit nervous about The Batman. I want it to be really good, and the legacy of this trilogy still looms so high for me as the benchmark. I have faith in Reeves, I just wish it was March 4th already haha.

I also know people say not to compare, but that's easier said than done. TDK trilogy set my expectations at a certain point for Batman adaptions. Snyders version didn't even come close, and Reeves version seems, from what I've seen, to be getting close but we'd have to see. This is the first REAL Batman film since The Dark Knight Rises, and the first in a trilogy since Batman Begins. The anxiety and excitement are high haha. I guess the point I'm trying to make is I want that feeling of expectations being met again. As someone who's been getting burnt on this genre the past few years, I look back on the Nolan and even Raimi days as "the most fun" and the Reeves era look like it's my only glimmer of hope and excitement for that again haha. I always see people say "We're living in the best era of comic book films" and I actually....don't agree? There are superhero films being released today with unfinished CGI that the GA just ignores, and most just look like one that came out just a few months prior. I mean, you know things are different when the cinematography for the new Batman film alone has you excited. There's a lack of identity today and I feel like I'm one of the few that actually cares about that.

 

[BatLobster]

Honestly, I don't think you have to worry too much @Gothamsknight. I do think the movie is going to be the real deal and that most fans are going to absolutely love it. Reeves is definitely aiming for the stars and that's about all you can hope for. The rest is going to come down to taste. I'm personally more just kind of nervous that people are going to recency bias the crap out of it, and the trilogy is going to become super under-appreciated for all it did for the character and film in general.

And I think it's a different feeling for me than when Nolan was doing his movies, because he was clearly going for something so different than what Burton and Schumacher did. Sure, you couldn't help but compare, but I never saw it as trying to replace anything. I think Reeves is doing something quite different than Nolan too, but because of the dark and grounded tone, it comes across a bit like "I'll do what Nolan was going for, but better + with a lot more fanservice and world-building." And it feels like that's how some people are going to receive it, like it's more of a replacement or a 2.0 of Nolan's films than just what it is- a new cinematic evolution of the character. I can't lie, that aspect of it all makes me feel more inclined to watch with a more cautious and critical eye. Especially because I'm a bit burnt out on the whole "Batman is insane and consumed by vengeance" take on the character after BvS.

I also agree with you about the state of superhero films. It's definitely the 'best' era if by best you mean the amount of them, the world-building and just the fact that pretty much anything once thought impossible to adapt is now possible. The downside of that is you can start to get numb to to it all. I definitely think Reeves is aware of this and is doing everything he can to make sure that this stylistically stands out. I 100% applaud that, and I look forward to taking feasting on Fraser's cinematography on a Dolby screen. I will say, I still prefer Nolan/Wally's visual style though. The scope of their films just really made it feel larger than life. I think it's one part the look of film itself, one part the use of IMAX, and also just from the locations they shot, both inside and outside of Gotham. There's a sense of claustrophobia I get from The Batman's cinematography. Which might be exactly the intended effect, but I'm curious how that will feel over the course of nearly 3 hours.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Honestly, I don't think you have to worry too much @Gothamsknight. I do think the movie is going to be the real deal and that most fans are going to absolutely love it. Reeves is definitely aiming for the stars and that's about all you can hope for. The rest is going to come down to taste. I'm personally more just kind of nervous that people are going to recency bias the crap out of it, and the trilogy is going to become super under-appreciated for all it did for the character and film in general.

And I think it's a different feeling for me than when Nolan was doing his movies, because he was clearly going for something so different than what Burton and Schumacher did. Sure, you couldn't help but compare, but I never saw it as trying to replace anything. I think Reeves is doing something quite different than Nolan too, but because of the dark and grounded tone, it comes across a bit like "I'll do what Nolan was going for, but better + with a lot more fanservice and world-building." And it feels like that's how some people are going to receive it, like it's more of a replacement or a 2.0 of Nolan's films than just what it is- a new cinematic evolution of the character. I can't lie, that aspect of it all makes me feel more inclined to watch with a more cautious and critical eye. Especially because I'm a bit burnt out on the whole "Batman is insane and consumed by vengeance" take on the character after BvS.

I also agree with you about the state of superhero films. It's definitely the 'best' era if by best you mean the amount of them, the world-building and just the fact that pretty much anything once thought impossible to adapt is now possible. The downside of that is you can start to get numb to to it all. I definitely think Reeves is aware of this and is doing everything he can to make sure that this stylistically stands out. I 100% applaud that, and I look forward to taking feasting on Fraser's cinematography on a Dolby screen. I will say, I still prefer Nolan/Wally's visual style though. The scope of their films just really made it feel larger than life. I think it's one part the look of film itself, one part the use of IMAX, and also just from the locations they shot, both inside and outside of Gotham. There's a sense of claustrophobia I get from The Batman's cinematography. Which might be exactly the intended effect, but I'm curious how that will feel over the course of nearly 3 hours.

I think we are absolutely gonna get something great from Reeves, and we couldn't be in better hands. The part that gets me a little sour has nothing to do with the film itself, but the fans actually who seem to forget the characters past, both high and low. I think forget that Batman has been a HUGE deal before and the franchise was dead at one point. Burton first, and then after the death of the character from Batman & Robin, Nolan revamped the franchise into something so fresh and new. It kinda bothers me that people tend to forget that now, but you know what, I'm gonna try my best to ignore that. Everything from Reeves and the cast and crew has kept on reassuring me that this new film is gonna be very satisfying and that's all I ask for. I think it's part of the reason I'm nervous because with how good it looks, it's like "is it really possible that this film is gonna be a huge success in a franchise that has had that already?" and it sure as heck looks like that's the case. I never would have thought a new Batman film could look THIS good, but here we are.

Also, as you mentioned with Reeves, he is going with a style that separates it from what we see every year now. That's part of the reason I'm excited too, I mean, It's got an identity you know? If this was a world building CGI fest, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as hyped, despite my love for Batman. People say these characters constantly reboot themeselves for generations, and while that may be true, I do think there's a limit. Even Reeves himself brought up the point that there was pretty much only one way you could do this that doesn't feel like it's been done already. That's another reason I trust him, even setting aside the fact that he's a great filmmaker.

Wally Pfisters cinematography was spectacular and to this day, I still always get excited whenever i watch one of Nolans films. His work was always one of the most obvious aspects that made it special, not just with TDK trilogy. I was rewatching Memento and Insomnia recently, and even there it's just so gorgeous and sets the mood perfectly. Pfister and Fraser both have very different styles that I think compliment their respective worlds well. One of my favorite shots in The Dark Knight that perfectly displays this is the armored truck chase, and Joker/Batmans stand off on the streets. Just the way it's lit speaks volumes. Then of course you have the iconic shot of Batman standing over the rubble where Rachel died.

 

[BatLobster]

I think we are absolutely gonna get something great from Reeves, and we couldn't be in better hands. The part that gets me a little sour has nothing to do with the film itself, but the fans actually who seem to forget the characters past, both high and low. I think forget that Batman has been a HUGE deal before and the franchise was dead at one point. Burton first, and then after the death of the character from Batman & Robin, Nolan revamped the franchise into something so fresh and new. It kinda bothers me that people tend to forget that now, but you know what, I'm gonna try my best to ignore that. Everything from Reeves and the cast and crew has kept on reassuring me that this new film is gonna be very satisfying and that's all I ask for. I think it's part of the reason I'm nervous because with how good it looks, it's like "is it really possible that this film is gonna be a huge success in a franchise that has had that already?" and it sure as heck looks like that's the case. I never would have thought a new Batman film could look THIS good, but here we are.

Also, as you mentioned with Reeves, he is going with a style that separates it from what we see every year now. That's part of the reason I'm excited too, I mean, It's got an identity you know? If this was a world building CGI fest, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be as hyped, despite my love for Batman. People say these characters constantly reboot themeselves for generations, and while that may be true, I do think there's a limit. Even Reeves himself brought up the point that there was pretty much only one way you could do this that doesn't feel like it's been done already. That's another reason I trust him, even setting aside the fact that he's a great filmmaker.

Wally Pfisters cinematography was spectacular and to this day, I still always get excited whenever i watch one of Nolans films. His work was always one of the most obvious aspects that made it special, not just with TDK trilogy. I was rewatching Memento and Insomnia recently, and even there it's just so gorgeous and sets the mood perfectly. Pfister and Fraser both have very different styles that I think compliment their respective worlds well. One of my favorite shots in The Dark Knight that perfectly displays this is the armored truck chase, and Joker/Batmans stand off on the streets. Just the way it's lit speaks volumes. Then of course you have the iconic shot of Batman standing over the rubble where Rachel died.

I hear you man, I think you have the right attitude. I wish more fans were like you honestly-- your enthusiasm for the movie always comes from a place that seems very pure and genuine and you get the bigger picture of all the history that makes this franchise what is. I'm sorry if I sometimes seem a bit hardened towards the new movie. I just love the trilogy that much, where it's hard for me to watch it fade or be seen as obsolete in some way. To me they're an irreplaceable part of my experience as a Batman fan, as a movie fan, and really just as a person in general. I'm trying my best to ignore the noise too, which is why I vent in this thread sometimes where I know people will at least understand where I'm coming from. I think what it comes down to is I wish I could just experience this movie completely removed from fan culture, which I feel is in such a bad place. It can really sap one's enthusiasm for something if you get too close to it.

All of that said....I am still very excited for the movie! It's been on my mind quite a lot recently to be honest, it's kind of surreal to think we're about a month away from a new Batman movie.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I hear you man, I think you have the right attitude. I wish more fans were like you honestly-- your enthusiasm for the movie always comes from a place that seems very pure and genuine and you get the bigger picture of all the history that makes this franchise what is. I'm sorry if I sometimes seem a bit hardened towards the new movie. I just love the trilogy that much, where it's hard for me to watch it fade or be seen as obsolete in some way. To me they're an irreplaceable part of my experience as a Batman fan, as a movie fan, and really just as a person in general. I'm trying my best to ignore the noise too, which is why I vent in this thread sometimes where I know people will at least understand where I'm coming from. I think what it comes down to is I wish I could just experience this movie completely removed from fan culture, which I feel is in such a bad place. It can really sap one's enthusiasm for something if you get too close to it.

All of that said....I am still very excited for the movie! It's been on my mind quite a lot recently to be honest, it's kind of surreal to think we're about a month away from a new Batman movie.

haha I appreciate that, man. Not everybody likes enthusiasm unfortunately, and there's a particular user that frequents this forum that pretty much only replies to me with passive aggressive remarks, but hey that comes with the territory haha. But anyway, TDK trilogy is the one I hold close to my heart too, and its the same reason why I come here to vent as well. I think it's because for people like us it's hard for us to watch something that was so beloved at one time be treated as "less than" or "never was" today. There's probably a lot of factors in why some people try to paint those movies as not great, but I'm willing to be a lot of it is just that some people were too young to experience the hype. And to them I say, just because you were 6 when The Dark Knight came out doesn't make it any less incredible. They'll say I'm gatekeeping, but

Too many people have a voice today which is why fanbases are the way they are. Everybody with a mouth can try to sour the whole thing for people. It's why I sometimes pull back and try to look through the window haha.

But yes, I've said it multiple times, but The Batman is the most hyped I've been for one of these movies in a decade. It feels good that theres hype for a new Batman film again, and a whole new era that is coming for everybody.

 

[BatLobster]

There's probably a lot of factors in why some people try to paint those movies as not great, but I'm willing to be a lot of it is just that some people were too young to experience the hype. And to them I say, just because you were 6 when The Dark Knight came out doesn't make it any less incredible. They'll say I'm gatekeeping, but

Heh, I honestly don't think it's gatekeeping. Like I said, I think it's just about respect. That's what I wish there was more of in the fan community.

It's something I had to learn as a fan too over the years. I've really learned to appreciate the 60s series for example. It's a very important part of Batman's history. On a personal note, my dad loved the 60s series. He never read the comics growing up. Adam West was his Batman. It's funny because when I was a kid, I was all into Burton's Batman and he openly disliked it. To him, it wasn't Batman- it was too dark, too serious, he never bought Michael Keaton in the role. So from a very young age I've been extremely aware of how personal it is and how there are different versions that mean different things to different people.

I always wished he could put that aside and appreciate 'my' Batman for what it was. At the same time, looking back I can now imagine how he felt at the time. Something that was precious to him from his youth was being bashed and shunned and declared not the "REAL" Batman. I wouldn't be surprised if all of that soured him on the movies. It was open season on bashing the 60s series in the 80s and 90s.

So I think that's one reason I get sensitive about this stuff and wish the fan community could take a step back and realize that it's all valid and it's very subjective.

On a more positive note, later in life I showed him BTAS and he really appreciated it. The Grey Ghost episode in particular won him over. And I did take him to see TDK- which while still not his Batman, he acknowledged it was a great film and an incredible performance from Heath.

 

[batfreakforever]

I couldn't give a rats about the runtime. BVS ultimate edition 3 hours flew by. So did the Snyder 4 hour cut of Justice league for me. So The Batman at nearly 3 hours is heaven for me. The Dark Knight and Rises flew by too. Batman never get boring no matter what I'm watching him in.
When people say Batman died for a while with Batman & Robin. It didn't for me. I never hated that movie. Not my favourite version but I never hated it. I can get through all of it and enjoy it from start to finish. Obviously their are some things that I didn't like but I can get through it and enjoy it.
More Batman is never a problem for me. People may get sick of him because they like other heros more but for me. Nope. Bring it on. We have 3 live action Batmans this year. Each will bring something different for me. May not to the general audience but for me yes.
I don't get bogged down by people crapping on something I like or wanna see. Batman always comes back. Always.

 

[titansupes]

Honestly, I don't think you have to worry too much @Gothamsknight. I do think the movie is going to be the real deal and that most fans are going to absolutely love it. Reeves is definitely aiming for the stars and that's about all you can hope for. The rest is going to come down to taste. I'm personally more just kind of nervous that people are going to recency bias the crap out of it, and the trilogy is going to become super under-appreciated for all it did for the character and film in general.

And I think it's a different feeling for me than when Nolan was doing his movies, because he was clearly going for something so different than what Burton and Schumacher did. Sure, you couldn't help but compare, but I never saw it as trying to replace anything. I think Reeves is doing something quite different than Nolan too, but because of the dark and grounded tone, it comes across a bit like "I'll do what Nolan was going for, but better + with a lot more fanservice and world-building." And it feels like that's how some people are going to receive it, like it's more of a replacement or a 2.0 of Nolan's films than just what it is- a new cinematic evolution of the character. I can't lie, that aspect of it all makes me feel more inclined to watch with a more cautious and critical eye. Especially because I'm a bit burnt out on the whole "Batman is insane and consumed by vengeance" take on the character after BvS.

I also agree with you about the state of superhero films. It's definitely the 'best' era if by best you mean the amount of them, the world-building and just the fact that pretty much anything once thought impossible to adapt is now possible. The downside of that is you can start to get numb to to it all. I definitely think Reeves is aware of this and is doing everything he can to make sure that this stylistically stands out. I 100% applaud that, and I look forward to taking feasting on Fraser's cinematography on a Dolby screen. I will say, I still prefer Nolan/Wally's visual style though. The scope of their films just really made it feel larger than life. I think it's one part the look of film itself, one part the use of IMAX, and also just from the locations they shot, both inside and outside of Gotham. There's a sense of claustrophobia I get from The Batman's cinematography. Which might be exactly the intended effect, but I'm curious how that will feel over the course of nearly 3 hours.

When it comes to Batman (and likely a bunch of other stuff, too), if you could somehow use you mod superpowers to automatically have me like the posts, that would really save me some time.

 

[BatLobster]

When it comes to Batman (and likely a bunch of other stuff, too), if you could somehow use you mod superpowers to automatically have me like the posts, that would really save me some time.

Aw shucks.

Sometimes I feel a bit like I'm becoming an old man shaking my fists at the sky. I'm glad my rants a striking a cord somewhere, even if it's just a few of us.

 

[The Batman]

I'm personally more just kind of nervous that people are going to recency bias the crap out of it, and the trilogy is going to become super under-appreciated for all it did for the character and film in general.

I do think this'll be inevitable among the diehard fans, especially since there are already people who nitpick TDK trilogy based off surface level stuff.

As for the casual fans, I'm not sure. I won't be surprised if TDK remains their favorite Batman film overall.

 

[BatLobster]

I do think this'll be inevitable among the diehard fans, especially since there are already people who nitpick TDK trilogy based off surface level stuff.

As for the casual fans, I'm not sure. I won't be surprised if TDK remains their favorite Batman film overall.

Oh yeah, I mean I feel like pretty much a large chunk of the fanbase has already declared this the best. That's fine, it is what it is and I expect that. I mean, I'd love for it to hit me so hard that I end up feeling that way.

I just hope liking something the best doesn't devolve into retroactively saying Nolan's films suck now. I hope we're better than that as a fanbase, haha. But we'll see. All I know is there is no way a 2 hour and 55 minute film that looks as grounded, dark and serious as this movie could've ever existed without TDK Trilogy paving the way. You'll never convince me otherwise.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Anybody remember the first time we heard this? I remember back then I was like "daaaaaaamn!" The use of a chant for Banes theme was simply perfection, in my mind. Zimmers work is just *chefs kiss*