The Dark Knight Rises What the RISES might imply...

[Lungrocket]

The title implies that Batman rises from the ashes of the events that occurred in TDK (Rachel's death, Harvey's death, the city losing hope, Batman being wanted for murder now).

True, but the title could take on other connotations as well. I doubt the story for the third film will only be about answering the questions posed at the end of TDK.

 

[Gianakin_]

True, but the title could take on other connotations as well. I doubt the story for the third film will only be about answering the questions posed at the end of TDK.

It should, and I really think it will.

 

[truth]

TDK lost focus screentime-wise, Dent got the meaty arc as far as the surface level of the script is concerned (and in no way am I saying that his arc was superficial). He was the backbone of the story, but Batman had a fantastic story arc that was very very subtle. But it was there. Batman changed, evolved.

I do agree with you, though, more screentime for Bale would be golden. Especially as Bruce. I missed than with TDK.

Hmmm, it was so subtle that I forgot he was in the film.

The dude is right, Dent got the better story-arc whilst Batman was forgotten about. He had NADA.

 

[truth]

Its far more dramatic and suspenseful to see the hero put into predicaments where he faces impossible odds. The villain needs to be superior to your hero so the hero can overcome.

Having the hero handle everything is far less dramatic and gripping.

A lot of truth here.

What makes Venom such a great villain is that he is so much stronger than Spiderman and Spidey has to dig REAL deep and use his wits to defeat him.

Not seen a truly powerful adversary that literally, beats the living C out of Batman and tests him on a physical level.

In Batman, Keaton REALLY got beaten up pretty bad and you really see him having to dig deep to take out those thugs, after bleeding. Not really seen Bale's Batman truly suffer and work hard.

 

[Keyser Soze]

The one definite thing I hope the title implies is that the focus goes back to Bruce Wayne/batman.

All the films prior to Batman Begins made the lead character a supporting player to the villains. Batman should be the protagonist in his own films. They lost focus of this in TDK giving Dent the meaty character arc, and I hope Bats/Bruce is front and center again this next go around.

The Joker and Harvey Dent may have had the flashier roles, but the real heart and soul of the film comes with the arcs of Batman and - more and more I appreciate this, with repeat viewings - Jim Gordon. Gary Oldman may actually have the best performance in the movie.

 

[Solidus]

The Joker and Harvey Dent may have had the flashier roles, but the real heart and soul of the film comes with the arcs of Batman and - more and more I appreciate this, with repeat viewings - Jim Gordon. Gary Oldman may actually have the best performance in the movie.

I agree, the first few times it seemed like he was really in the background. But the core of the story really revolves around him, and every decision of the Joker and Two-Face really reflect on the world Bruce has to deal with and is in.

 

[Brother Jack]

The Joker and Harvey Dent may have had the flashier roles, but the real heart and soul of the film comes with the arcs of Batman and - more and more I appreciate this, with repeat viewings - Jim Gordon. Gary Oldman may actually have the best performance in the movie.

This is especially true since literally everything that happens in the film is directly or indirectly because of Batman/Bruce. Harvey was the most dynamic character certainly, in the way that he had the biggest arc, but he (along with Joker) was ultimately a story device used to further explore Batman. It always comes back around to Bruce, and I guarantee you'll see that come 2012.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Hmmm, it was so subtle that I forgot he was in the film.

The dude is right, Dent got the better story-arc whilst Batman was forgotten about. He had NADA.

I wouldn't say that.

Batman's arc was subtle, but it was there. He's concerned that he may be inspiring people in the wrong way, wants to be with Rachel, and thinks that Harvey can provide that. So he starts out the film kind of reluctant or uncertain about what he's doing.

Then Joker puts more pressure on him, "show us who you are or people die," basically. Judge Cerillo, Commissioner Loeb and, apparently, Jim Gordon get murdered. If Bruce gives himself up he loses Rachel. But if he doesn't do it he does the opposite of saving Gotham. At this point he's ready to give himself up. Then Harvey takes the fall for him.

They capture Joker, but Harvey and Rachel get kidnapped. Batman beats the living crap out of Joker, which we are meant to believe is something he maybe regrets doing, since it ultimately does no good. Rachel is murdered, Harvey is disfigured, Joker blows up the MCU and takes off with Lau. Batman's lost the woman he loves and the man he's counting on to save Gotham and let him off the hook. He's done something he's not proud of and still lost. And now he thinks maybe the only way out IS to kill the Joker.

Batman essentially tortures Maroni to get him to talk - again crossing a personal boundary even though it's not one he's previously laid out. We're meant to believe that he may have done something he should not have done.
But Joker murders Lau, throws out the Reese hit and hospital bombing as a distraction and kidnaps Harvey in the ensuing chaos. So Bruce modifies Fox's cell-phone sonar gadget to tap every phone in the city - this is basically a commentary on wire-tapping and shows Batman supposedly breaking another noble rule. Lucius then threatens to resign on him. In case you haven't noticed, this is establishing a pattern of loss for Batman. That no matter what he does, he's screwed. Joker wants to break his spirit and his "faith in people," a phrase that Rachel uses in her farewell letter.

Batman has to go against Gordon's wishes in order to save the hostages and finally has his showdown with the Joker. But here, Batman DOES maintain his faith in people, and it is not in vain. Joker's plan fails because Batman stopped reacting emotionally and trusted the people of Gotham to have some basic human compassion. It's a victory, but it's short-lived.

Because Harvey kidnaps Jim's family and uses this to bring Jim and Batman to him, where he'll let his coin decide who lives and dies. In saving Jim's family, Batman causes Harvey's death, and in the interest of preserving Dent's image as Gotham's knight in shining armor, Batman chooses to take the blame for all of the terrible things Harvey has done. This is... not exactly a defeat, but a sacrifice on Batman's part to avoid a total loss. Now he's free from feeling that he's inspired people wrongly - he's an outcast. Now Harvey's image can be inviolate and everlasting. A symbol more potent and more meaningful in many ways than Batman could ever be.

And Batman has accepted aloneness. He's lost all of his allies, and has given up his own heroic image in order to protect Harvey's. Batman has chosen to be a pillar of strength and integrity that nobody will ever recognize or appreciate. Not a hero, as Gordon says, but a silent guardian and watchful protector.

So yes... Batman ABSOLUTELY has an arc. But it doesn't have big flashing arrows pointing to it, "character development here." It just kind of happens organically in the film. And it happens as a result of everything else that happens in the film. So in a way it's ALL about him...

 

[Gianakin_]

Wow, people really covered me completely, both in this thread and in the Score one. Saves me a lot of trouble and arguing.

 

[The Batman]

Good post, keyser.

People get so wrapped up in how charismatic the villains are, that they dont realize that none of it works without Batman.

 

[Zack Snyder]

Fox will die, and Bruce/Batman will have to be at his full potential to run things now.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Good post, keyser.

Thanks.

People get so wrapped up in how charismatic the villains are, that they dont realize that none of it works without Batman.

Agreed...Batman's villains all tend to have some kind of a...I like to say "connection," but as Protoctista said in another thread, they mirror, parallel, or inverse Batman. It means that exploring the villains also means exploring Batman.

 

[The Joker]

I concur. Brilliant post, Keyser.

 

[wikum]

wow keyser is still here. i would've hung around...but in terms of superheros, i only really care for batman.

anyways, the name "rises" says to me that batman has gone into hiding. whilst in hiding, gotham's been totally taken overrun by crime (or insert enemy here), who causes batman to come back. this is despite the fact that the entire gcpd wants batman dead/in jail. three way ensues between police/enemies/batman with catwoman messing all three sides around. batman eventually saves the day and somehow via gordon his name gets cleared. end trilogy.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I concur. Brilliant post, Keyser.

Thanks, Joker.

wow keyser is still here. i would've hung around...but in terms of superheros, i only really care for batman.

Hey wikum! I didn't actually stick around, I just came back a couple of days ago. I like other superheroes but Batman's really the only one I care enough about to debate on a discusson forum.

 

[wikum]

yea i remember nights of endless tdk speculation/discussion with you and some girl lol. funny times.

i have some hopes for this film. i think it might have more long term value than tdk, although it probably won't be AS much of a blockbuster due to no dead actors playing the joker (sad but most likely true). then again it might end up as the worst of the trilogy.

i'm hoping for something that's a big less of a cluster**** than tdk, although it was a good cluster**** in it's own way.

it's weird because i honestly think that batman begins holds it's quality over time better than both tdk and inception (i just mentioned this in another thread too lol). i think they should go back down the begins route and use some of the stuff that made it such a great film. have bruce slowly gain back his confidence over time, then about half way through the film finally have him take his first baby steps back into the gotham nightlife. i liked that slow build up that begins used a lot. i also liked the way they shot batman as a creature of the shadows (which i feel tdk didn't do as well).

 

[Keyser Sushi]

yea i remember nights of endless tdk speculation/discussion with you and some girl lol. funny times.

Ha, I seem to recall that. Long time ago...

i have some hopes for this film. i think it might have more long term value than tdk, although it probably won't be AS much of a blockbuster due to no dead actors playing the joker (sad but most likely true). then again it might end up as the worst of the trilogy.

Sad to say but I think you're right about the box office. It ought to do better than Begins, though, since so many people saw TDK. BB had a lot to overcome with the previous Batman movie having been the stuff that crap flushes down the toilet.

i'm hoping for something that's a big less of a cluster**** than tdk, although it was a good cluster**** in it's own way.

Seriously? I love TDK. It's my favorite Batman movie and one of my favorite films.

it's weird because i honestly think that batman begins holds it's quality over time better than both tdk and inception (i just mentioned this in another thread too lol). i think they should go back down the begins route and use some of the stuff that made it such a great film. have bruce slowly gain back his confidence over time, then about half way through the film finally have him take his first baby steps back into the gotham nightlife. i liked that slow build up that begins used a lot. i also liked the way they shot batman as a creature of the shadows (which i feel tdk didn't do as well).

Now some of that I understand. TDK chose to take Batman out of the shadows, in some ways. Batman was often photographed in the light. I wasn't sure how I felt about that when the initial photos came out, but seeing the movie it didn't bother me. And truth be told, Batman isn't always in the shadows in the comics, either. I thought that despite having him appear in fluorescent lighting, the film kept him mysterious with his ability to disappear seemingly at will, and despite being in bright lighting during the interrogation scene with Joker, Batman was easily the most intense and intimidating I've ever seen him in a live-action film. Actually both he and Joker looked like they had eyes made from obsidian... it was disconcerting and frankly fantastic.

I love both films...they are quite different but I think both of them nail it pretty hard. It's a pair of amazing Batman movies and I hope Nolan can continue that with the DKR.

 

[Solidus]

I actually think TDKR will be around the level of TDK easily. I mean Inception is at 820 million WW and what can we say about that? Heath's ghost threaten everyone to go see the film? No. Quality brings people, not dead actors. Ask Chris Farley. Or many other "dead" actors and how horrible some of their last movies did.

I'm not ever 100% on these things, but I think TDKR will be making around 1 billion. I'd say 850-900 conservatlivley. And more likley above a billion. Of course I will never say this is in the bag, but with how well Inception did as an original IP, and the love TDK had, I'm sure that it will do quite well.

To me BB though still a superb movie, actually lost some of its luster. TDK has held up better. Though I would like to see more of Bats as a creature of the night, I think the story they told for TDK worked well, but I too would like to see him more of the creature as well in some scenes. But IMO BB did that to establish that is what he is, TDK focused more on other aspects of the Bat.

 

[wikum]

I actually think TDKR will be around the level of TDK easily. I mean Inception is at 820 million WW and what can we say about that? Heath's ghost threaten everyone to go see the film? No. Quality brings people, not dead actors. Ask Chris Farley. Or many other "dead" actors and how horrible some of their last movies did.

no, it was a combination of a dead actor playing the joker that sealed the deal...though i will happily admit that it was more to do with the joker and less to do with heath's death.

Seriously? I love TDK. It's my favorite Batman movie and one of my favorite films.

admittedly, i'm very hard on tdk. it's probably my most watched film of all time (i imagine i've seen it 25+ times). plus it's got my favorite character of all comic/film/art genres (the joker). i nitpick at this film more than any other.

Now some of that I understand. TDK chose to take Batman out of the shadows, in some ways. Batman was often photographed in the light. I wasn't sure how I felt about that when the initial photos came out, but seeing the movie it didn't bother me. And truth be told, Batman isn't always in the shadows in the comics, either. I thought that despite having him appear in fluorescent lighting, the film kept him mysterious with his ability to disappear seemingly at will, and despite being in bright lighting during the interrogation scene with Joker, Batman was easily the most intense and intimidating I've ever seen him in a live-action film. Actually both he and Joker looked like they had eyes made from obsidian... it was disconcerting and frankly fantastic.

i didn't explain what i meant very well, so i'll elaborate. i had no problem with the interrogation scene or the hong kong/batpod in gotham acts, i thought these were all works of art (especially the way the latter 2 were shot on imax). what i meant was that i loved the way they shot batman's first four major scenes in begins (cargo dock, flass, scarecrow apartment, arkham). nothing in tkd really compares to them whatsoever, and i think that this was for the worse. the way he attacked his enemies from the skys/shadows, and the quickness and precision he takes in calculating his strikes all feel very real, almost animal like (kinda like o.g predator).

I love both films...they are quite different but I think both of them nail it pretty hard. It's a pair of amazing Batman movies and I hope Nolan can continue that with the DKR.

couldn't agree more. i'm not even sure what i want from this film yet. i was totally shocked that the riddler was left out (although i feel this could turn out to be a masterstroke by nolan).

 

[Solidus]

no, it was a combination of a dead actor playing the joker that sealed the deal...though i will happily admit that it was more to do with the joker and less to do with heath's death.

I would say to a point. But I still think (if the film is quality which I'm sure it will be) they will be able to get as many people in the seats. Inception proved without big actors, without a known name, and completely original idea, and actually quite risky being more thought provoking, and it did well. I think Nolan could bring the masses with Batman involved easily.

But again we will see. If I could go in the future to see the BO reports, I would have watched the movie already lol. Too bad I don't have a Delorean or something.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Damn, when everyone was saying "good post, Keyser", "brilliant post, Keyser", I thought they were talking to me.

 

[Gianakin_]

Good post, keyser (soze)!

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Interesting points being made. I think Keyser Sushi has given us some omega3 for discussion.

I have to say I still prefer "Batman Begins" to the second film. I think for me there were a few things about my viewing experience which didn't match the level of the first film. When I first saw the first film, I was thrilled beyond belief, I had high expectations and the film exceeded them. I was totally bowled over by it and it still remains one of my favourite films. Furthermore, I found great emotional engagement with the piece. There was a lot of pathos for me in the film. The death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, the guilt, pain and turmoil shown by Bruce Wayne and the tender relationship between Alfred and Bruce. All in all, there was a strong emotional heft behind the proceedings.

However, the sequel didn't have the same effect on me. I thought the Joker was outstanding, I couldn't recognise Heath Ledger since he was that good. Gary Oldman shone as Commissioner Gordon and there were a lot of clever ideas and even observations (not commentary) in the film. Nonetheless, the emotional engagement or heft wasn't there for me. I know we were meant to believe in the relationship between Bruce and Rachel Dawes but I remained unconvinced. Moreover, I thought Bruce Wayne wasn't as interesting this time around and Christian Bale to me came across as a rather emotionally cool figure. It's strange, when I had finished seeing the film I felt a grave disappointment with it even though I had still enjoyed it. I was disappointed because I didn't feel moved by it in the same way that the first film had done to me. Mark Kermode from the BBC's Five Live radio station explains my feelings rather well:

Mark Kermode

I think one problem for me is that the story feels incomplete at the end of the "The Dark Knight". Therefore, it's hard for me to enjoy it until I see the next film and then I can evaluate the film more thoroughly and see how it fits into the whole trilogy. It's almost as if I'm waiting to see Batman rise again and become triumphant. Don't misunderstand, I want to see both Bruce Wayne and Batman face tremendous pitfalls and challenges but I want to see them overcome such obstacles and rise to the annals of legend.

I do have a few questions for everyone:

1. How can Batman be absolved of his alleged 'crimes' when Harvey Dent is dead and only Gordon and Ramirez know the truth? In particular, since Gordon read out a moving eulogy on Dent at his memorial service.

2. How can Batman be embraced and accepted by both the citizens of Gotham and its police force in a way which isn't forced/contrived and actually believable? Perhaps Batman's given the 'key' to the city; he's made an honoury member of the G.P.D?

3. How soon or long after the events of "The Dark Knight" should the next film begin? Do we begin with a 'chase scene' right from the last moment of the second film or do we need an elapsed period of time to show the worsening situation in Gotham?

Thank you.

 

[Gianakin_]

Interesting points being made. I think Keyser Sushi has given us some omega3 for discussion.

I have to say I still prefer "Batman Begins" to the second film. I think for me there were a few things about my viewing experience which didn't match the level of the first film. When I first saw the first film, I was thrilled beyond belief, I had high expectations and the film exceeded them. I was totally bowled over by it and it still remains one of my favourite films. Furthermore, I found great emotional engagement with the piece. There was a lot of pathos for me in the film. The death of Thomas and Martha Wayne, the guilt, pain and turmoil shown by Bruce Wayne and the tender relationship between Alfred and Bruce. All in all, there was a strong emotional heft behind the proceedings.

However, the sequel didn't have the same effect on me. I thought the Joker was outstanding, I couldn't recognise Heath Ledger since he was that good. Gary Oldman shone as Commissioner Gordon and there were a lot of clever ideas and even observations (not commentary) in the film. Nonetheless, the emotional engagement or heft wasn't there for me. I know we were meant to believe in the relationship between Bruce and Rachel Dawes but I remained unconvinced. Moreover, I thought Bruce Wayne wasn't as interesting this time around and Christian Bale to me came across as a rather emotionally cool figure. It's strange, when I had finished seeing the film I felt a grave disappointment with it even though I had still enjoyed it. I was disappointed because I didn't feel moved by it in the same way that the first film had done to me. Mark Kermode from the BBC's Five Live radio station explains my feelings rather well:

Mark Kermode

I think one problem for me is that the story feels incomplete at the end of the "The Dark Knight". Therefore, it's hard for me to enjoy it until I see the next film and then I can evaluate the film more thoroughly and see how it fits into the whole trilogy. It's almost as if I'm waiting to see Batman rise again and become triumphant. Don't misunderstand, I want to see both Bruce Wayne and Batman face tremendous pitfalls and challenges but I want to see them overcome such obstacles and rise to the annals of legend.

I do have a few questions for everyone:

1. How can Batman be absolved of his alleged 'crimes' when Harvey Dent is dead and only Gordon and Ramirez know the truth? In particular, since Gordon read out a moving eulogy on Dent at his memorial service.

2. How can Batman be embraced and accepted by both the citizens of Gotham and its police force in a way which isn't forced/contrived and actually believable? Perhaps Batman's given the 'key' to the city; he's made an honoury member of the G.P.D?

3. How soon or long after the events of "The Dark Knight" should the next film begin? Do we begin with a 'chase scene' right from the last moment of the second film or do we need an elapsed period of time to show the worsening situation in Gotham?

Thank you.

Although I generally disagree, very good post.

A comment, though: TDK and TDKR are like the ESB and RotJ, in regards to the cliffhanger ending. I'm not sure if you meant that observation as a TDK disadvantage or as a means to incite discussion, though, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

 

[Mach2Infinity]

Although I generally disagree, very good post.

A comment, though: TDK and TDKR are like the ESB and RotJ, in regards to the cliffhanger ending. I'm not sure if you meant that observation as a TDK disadvantage or as a means to incite discussion, though, so I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you.

Thank you. I would say the ending of "the Dark Knight" remains as a disadvantage for me. It feels incomplete and thus requires a resolution of some sort. It's as if I'm waiting for the third film to be released as it is the missing piece for me. I also think a more triumphant tone or mood for the third film would provide good symmetry for me in terms of my overall viewing experience of the trilogy. However having said so. I think the events of the second film have at least given us a fantastic proposition: how does the protagonist become the 'hero' after all with which he's lumbered? If Commissioner Gordon publicly admits the factual circumstances surrounding the death of Dent and his actions; what will be the repercussions for him?

One of Gordon's final lines interests me: "He's the hero Gotham deserves but not the one it needs right now, so we'll hunt him." So in essence, we're going to have the hunted 'beast' become the saviour of Gotham and turn from villain to hero. This will be very difficult to write in a convincing and entertaining manner but nonetheless achievable. I think this is cliché but not trite: I'd like to see Batman be cheered by the public; I'd like to see him be applauded and accepted by the G.P.D and I want to see the bat-signal become a monumental symbol for hope and justice. Surely this is the pay-off the character and audience deserves after viewing the entire trilogy and experiencing all the suffering and loss of Batman?