The Dark Knight Rises Why I think Rises can top TDK

[KalMart]

Loki brought an entire army of advanced killer aliens.


But look what Joker did with a coupla' bullets and a few cans of gasoline.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Gentlemen, there were many factors as to why Batman Begins only made a moderate 370 million.

• Ra's al Ghul and The League of Shadows were unknown villains.
• WB failed the movie with it's lackluster marketing campaign.
• Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale were low-key names.
• Batman hadn't been on-screen since Batman & Robin (1997).
• Begins was placed on a June slot.
• 2005 was a different time for CBMs compared to 2008 and 2011.

 

[DorneyDave]

Please offer a better idea if you have one.

I don't have one. Because it is a Batman story. A Batman story with two of his main supporting villains. Batman still has plenty of stuff to do and go through character wise in Dark Knight. Struggling with being Batman, Rachel, realizing that his being Batman is indeed giving birth to a new type of evil in the Joker and other "Freaks", almost turning himself in, dealing with the guilt of Rachel's death and Dent's demise. And his final choice to take on Dent's crimes.

Taking the Joker out and inserting a minor villain wouldn't change any of that. It would have just made a much less interesting film. Put a starfish in the shark's role in Jaws, and you still have a story about 3 guys trying to kill a starfish. But why not use the shark instead?

 

[cobrastatus]

Joker was the catalyst that caused Dent do those crimes killed Rachel and forced batman to cover it to keep Gotham from falling to hell

 

[DorneyDave]

Joker was the catalyst that caused Dent do those crimes

Any character could have caused that if it was written that way.

 

[cobrastatus]

Any character could have caused that if it was written that way.

Nobody could have done it better

 

[KalMart]

I don't have one. Because it is a Batman story.

Now there's a revelation.

A Batman story with two of his main supporting villains. Batman still has plenty of stuff to do and go through character wise in Dark Knight. Struggling with being Batman, Rachel, realizing that his being Batman is indeed giving birth to a new type of evil in the Joker and other "Freaks", almost turning himself in, dealing with the guilt of Rachel's death and Dent's demise. And his final choice to take on Dent's crimes.

And Joker is so huge that it feels like a Joker movie.

Taking the Joker out and inserting a minor villain wouldn't change any of that. It would have just made a much less interesting film. Put a starfish in the shark's role in Jaws, and you still have a story about 3 guys trying to kill a starfish. But why not use the shark instead?

Right...I guess you must have thought that was a serious answer about the Joker.

"Starfish' is a nice title for a movie, though.

 

[Fudgie]

Gentlemen, there were many factors as to why Batman Begins only made a moderate 370 million.

• Ra's al Ghul and The League of Shadows were unknown villains.
• WB failed the movie with it's lackluster marketing campaign.
• Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale were low-key names.
• Batman hadn't been on-screen since Batman & Robin (1997).
• Begins was placed on a June slot.
• 2005 was a different time for CBMs compared to 2008 and 2011.

- The Green Goblin was an unknown villain to the public. What would anyone know him from unless they're Spider-Man fans just like Batman fans would know Ra's. Spider-Man 2002 made 815 mil
- Spider-Man had no big marketing campaign either
- Sam Raimi and Toby Maguire were not big names in 2002 either
- Spider-Man had not been on screen ever. Batman had four movies and a live action TV show
- What difference does June make. Lots of movies released in June made big bucks. The Hangover made like 470 mil and that's just a cheesy comedy.
- 2005 had already had several big hit CBMs by then. CBMs were really popular and the in thing by then. It started with X-Men in 2000 and just kept going.

 

[DorneyDave]

And Joker is so huge that it becomes a Joker movie.

That's like saying Backdraft's main character was fire. Because the Joker was just pure personified destruction. He undergoes no character arc. Ledger's performance overshadows everything in the movie, but it doesn't make it Joker's film story-wise.

They should also charge you for using that wink smiley, haha.

 

[The Joker]

That's like saying Backdraft's main character was fire. Because the Joker was just pure personified destruction. He undergoes no character arc. Ledger's performance overshadows everything in the movie, but it doesn't make it Joker's film story-wise.

They should also charge you for using that wink smiley, haha.

Right you are

Hannibal Lecter is the best comparison to Joker in TDK. Lecter's 20 minute screen time in The Silence of the Lambs, most of which he spends just sitting in a cell talking to Clarice, and he became a cinematic legend after that and by far the character most associated with that movie. Hopkins got an Oscar for it, too.

 

[cobrastatus]

Maybe we went expecting anything great from bb at the time

 

[DorneyDave]

Nobody could have done it better

I completely agree actually.

 

[Fudgie]

Maybe we went expecting anything great from bb at the time

I went in expecting better than BB and I got it. So did the public and the critics too apparently.

 

[Sharkboy]

Surely Batman and Robin is to blame for BB's modest income, and that fact that no one knew what a reboot actually was. If you weren't there then you wouldn't get it, Batman wasn't exactly top dog when it came to superheroes. Especially in the post 9/11 word where everyone flocked to the "everyman" colourful spidey, as opposed to the dark brooding playboy.

It could very well be true that Batman couldn't have carried a film on his own in the recent past (there are certainly times where he could have), but i think we've reached a point where Batman as a brand could definitely draw huge HUGE bucks. Heck, the dark knight rises will make a ton of money and i dont think you can attribute it all to Hardy and Hathaway.

 

[KalMart]

That's like saying Backdraft's main character was fire. Because the Joker was just pure personified destruction. He undergoes no character arc. Ledger's performance overshadows everything in the movie, but it doesn't make it Joker's film story-wise.

They should also charge you for using that wink smiley, haha.

Oh, I never said it makes him the lead, but he's definitely the dominating personality in the film. Which is a big part of why it feels like a Joker film, even if it's still technically a Batman film. But thanks for double-checkign the obvious meter, anyway.

And you may want to try taking the winky for what it is...free of charge.

"haha"

 

[cobrastatus]

That's like saying Backdraft's main character was fire.

LoL^

 

[DorneyDave]

I went went in expecting better than BB and I got it. So did the public and the critics too apparently.

I think he was talking about expectations for BB, not TDK.

TDK had huge expectations long before it was even announced due to Begin's final scene.

 

[The Joker]

It could very well be true that Batman couldn't have carried a film on his own in the recent past (there are certainly times where he could have), but i think we've reached a point where Batman as a brand could definitely draw huge HUGE bucks. Heck, the dark knight rises will make a ton of money and i dont think you can attribute it all to Hardy and Hathaway.

I think the fact that it's a sequel to The Dark Knight alone will be a big attraction. I think the fact they chose to put The Dark Knight in the title again may partially have been a marketing strategy on their behalf.

I don't think the villains are ever the sole reason that Batman movies are successful. Not only is that untrue but it's a slap in the face to all the other great actors who make these movies so good.

 

[DorneyDave]

Oh, I never said it makes him the lead, but he's definitely the dominating personality in the film. Which is a big part of why it feels like a Joker film, even if it's still technically a Batman film. But thanks for double-checkign the obvious meter, anyway.

And you may want to try taking the winky for what it is...free of charge.

"haha"

You went back and edited your post to add stuff to purposefully get under my skin and added nothing to conversation. Your point was made but you added the obvious meter and the haha. My haha was actually not laughing at you, just an observation that you liked using the wink, a harmless observation. Thanks for making me feel important at least. I'm going to watch the basketball game for now however.

 

[cobrastatus]

I was talking abou bb, I had no idea what that was gonna be about

 

[KalMart]

Also, the way that the Nolans have set up this story..when it takes place and all...really makes it specifically a story about Bruce Wayne the person, and the effects of this whole world of Batman/villains/etc on him. It utilizes something very unique about Batman...his mortality..combined with other character issues that are only his. So in a way, if TDK felt more like a Joker film or somehow not as focused on Batman...it's okay in the grand scheme of the trilogy as it comes 'full circle' back onto his already heavy-laden shoulders. Makes the entire saga arc more interesting, if you will.

 

[BatLobster]

A great hero always needs and deserves a great villain to go up against. The fact that Batman has so many great villains is a testament to his durability as a character, both in the comics and in film.

 

[KalMart]

You went back and edited your post to add stuff to purposefully get under my skin

No, not really. But if it did.....oh well.....

and added nothing to conversation.

And you had rolleyes to share. Brilliant.

Your point was made but you added the obvious meter and the haha. My haha was actually not laughing at you, just an observation that you liked using the wink, a harmless observation.

So was mine.

Thanks for making me feel important at least. I'm going to watch the basketball game for now however.

Thanks for feeling that way, and enjoy the game.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

- The Green Goblin was an unknown villain to the public. What would anyone know him from unless they're Spider-Man fans just like Batman fans would know Ra's. Spider-Man 2002 made 815 mil.

It was the first ever Spiderman on-screen adaptation. The villain was an after thought. All people cared about was the fact that Spiderman was going live-action.

Please.

- Spider-Man had no big marketing campaign either

You're lying through your teeth. Spiderman had a huge marketing campaign.

- Sam Raimi and Toby Maguire were not big names in 2002 either

See my first point, Einstein.

- What difference does June make. Lots of movies released in June made big bucks. The Hangover made like 470 mil and that's just a cheesy comedy.

Compared to May and July, the month of June has been declared a 'dead-zone' by box office experts.

The Hangover was a surprise hit.

- 2005 had already had several big hit CBMs by then. CBMs were really popular and the in thing by then. It started with X-Men in 2000 and just kept going.

There's no comparison to TDK, Iron Man 1 & 2, and Thor (and now The Avengers and TDKR). Other than the Spiderman and the X-Men franchise, no other CBMs came close to making the dough that these recent movies have made. Furthermore, the fanbase for the genre wasn't as massive.

 

[JackWhite]

I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but Revenge of The Sith came out that year too.