The Dark Knight Rises Why I think Rises can top TDK

[GREEN =w= DAY]

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.

all true, especially that 2nd point. WB did a terrible job in promoting the film.

what really helped was that it received incredibly positive reviews, so word of mouth & DVD sales helped a lot in WB wanting to go forward with The Dark Knight.

 

[Fudgie]

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.

If that was true then every big hero's first outing on screen would have made Spider-Man type money.

Please.

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

Prove me wrong if I'm lying. Lets see some evidence of this huge marketing campaign.

See my first point, Einstein.

I did. It's wrong like the rest of your points, Sherlock.

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.

Bull. June releases have had many hits. I just quoted The Hangover as one example.

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.

I'm not comparing it to TDK, Iron Man or Thor. They are all way better than Begins. Iron Man has even got a higher critical rating than it. I'm telling you factually the comic book fan base was thriving by 2005.

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

That came out in May. It was no threat to Begins.

 

[BatLobster]

If that were true then every big hero's first outing on screen would have made Spider-Man type money.

Please.

Not to butt in, but...Spider-Man is in the top 3 most popular superheroes and was very long overdue for the big Hollywood treatment by the time SM1 came out in 2002. I think the hunger to see Spider-Man + post 9/11 longing for escapism and heroism went a long way in making it a hit.

And the marketing was definitely huge. I can't find pics, but there were billboards all over the place, a chart topping hit with "Hero", TV spots galore. It was definitely event and you either remember that or you don't.

I don't even disagree with the your point that the genre was thriving in 2005. It was, largely due to Spider-Man. In fact, I'll bet that another factor in BB's middle of the road box office performance was Spider-Man being the more popular character at the moment. The thought amongst the public being, "Eh, we have Spider-Man now, do we really need to see another Batman movie? The last one sucked anyway."

Funny how the role reversal is happening right now.

 

[Fudgie]

Not to butt in, but...Spider-Man is in the top 3 most popular superheroes and was very long overdue for the big Hollywood treatment by the time SM1 came out in 2002. I think the hunger to see Spider-Man + post 9/11 longing for escapism and heroism went a long way in making it a hit.

Batman is in the top 3 as well and long over due a come back after 1997.

And the marketing was definitely huge. I can't find pics, but there were billboards all over the place, a chart topping hit with "Hero", TV spots galore. It was definitely event and you either remember that or you don't.

http://www.filmthreat.com/features/1479/

I don't even disagree with the your point that the genre was thriving in 2005. It was, largely due to Spider-Man. In fact, I'll bet that another factor in BB's middle of the road box office performance was Spider-Man being the more popular character at the moment. The thought amongst the public being, "Eh, we have Spider-Man now, do we really need to see another Batman movie? The last one sucked anyway."

Funny how the role reversal is happening right now.

I don't buy that for sec. Batman's popularity never waned.

 

[KalMart]

Again, after B&R, and when Spidey and Xmen were leading a new era, Batman kinda' represented an older generation of franchises that had their day. So I do think there was an element of redundancy amongst the moviegoing public that BB was up against. Without really understanding that it was a reboot and who was creatively involved, it was too easy see it as coat-tailing a newfound popularity in comic-basd movies.

WB may also have figured that the brand itself would garner interest in a 'hot market' as well, hence the lackluster marketing. But i the end the movie's quality really did its speaking...and in that respect I'm sort of glad that it wasn't a mega-blockbuster and that viewers had to come to it moreso than vice-versa.

And TDK rewarded that effort.

 

[Frodo]

I personally doubt that TDK can be topped at least creatively. Everything just seemed to come togethwe from the villian, the story, to casting . Even going back to the 60's show the Joker has been hard villain to top. That said the film can still be great in its own right.

 

[filmboy33]

I agree that TDKR has the potential to be a better film than TDK. The first thing it has going for it is that it is the end of the trilogy. Now this is both an advantage and a curse. If Nolan does not stick the ending of this film, then I think not only this film but the whole series suffers for it. If he lands it, then this film becomes the pinnacle of this series and elevates the entire series as well.

Now that is not to say that all that comes before said ending is unimportant. In fact, I would say that is where you find the other advantages. One, things are going to get very dark for Gotham in this film. In TDK, we were always on the edge of disaster for Gotham. But we never went quite over that edge. In TDKR we are going to plunge over that edge and we will see the city fall into chaos and disorder.

Bane has the potential to become the villain in this series. I know many laugh at that idea or some consider it blasphemy in relation to Heath Ledger's Joker. But it could happen. Nolan's Bane seems to be the best of both worlds. He is incredibly intelligent and a match for Bruce on that level. He is also very much a physical match for Bruce as well. With Bane, you have a villain that can and will overpower Batman for the first time in this series.

What I am curious about is what Bane's backstory will be. Will he be connected to Ra's or will he have a different story to that. The great thing is that we have no idea about Bane's backstory and the film is a month from release!

Last, I think Catwoman will be a far better supporting character than Harvey Dent. I loved Aaron Eckhart's portrayal of Harvey. But to me Catwoman is the more iconic character. I am really digging Anne Hathaway's performance from what little I have seen to this point.

There are more reasons I could list, but this is a start.

 

[BatLobster]

Batman is in the top 3 as well and long over due a come back after 1997.



http://www.filmthreat.com/features/1479/



I don't buy that for sec. Batman's popularity never waned.

Yeah it did. Maybe not amongst the comic book community, but amongst the general public he was pretty old hat. I had a lot of friends back in 2004-5 that knew me as "the Batman guy", and it stood out that I cared so much about Begins when it was in development. Now, I'm just every other 20something year old dude .

Even the animated series had run its course by the early 2000s. There was not much Batman going on in the mainstream. Of course as we're witnessing these days, legends never truly die. But they do come and go.

We're talking 4 movies and 8 years distance...vs. 0 movies and 40 years since the creation of the character. It's a huge difference.

I'm not saying Begins didn't have money put into its marketing campaign. But I do think it was a combination of not effectively using that marketing, combined with people's skepticism. I mean, don't we all have stories about a confused friend who thought it was a prequel to Batman 89?

Spider-Man was just an easier movie to market all around. Light, colorful, fun, love story, iconic character never before seen on the big screen. Batman had a few more hurdles to overcome in 2005.

 

[KalMart]

Can we think of any third films tat we felt were better than the second?

For me, Back To The Future 3 I liked better than 2....and Matrix 3.

But those are series where the first was obviously the best...whereas TDK felt like more of an upswing.

 

[BatLobster]

Can we think of any third films tat we felt were better than the second?

For me, Back To The Future 3 I liked better than 2....and Matrix 3.

But those are series where the first was obviously the best...whereas TDK felt like more of an upswing.

I agree about Matrix Revolutions, underrated movie IMO. I thought it had the most heart of the trilogy. Obviously the original is the most well-made of the bunch though.

I think Toy Story 3 was stronger than 2. Though it's a miracle 2 was any good in the first place with the crunch Pixar was under.

In terms of finding a trilogy where each successive film got better...that's a toughie. Arguably LOTR, but everyone seems to have a favorite. Plus, to me that is all one long film since it was shot continuously.

 

[Brother Jack]

Can we think of any third films tat we felt were better than the second?

For me, Back To The Future 3 I liked better than 2....and Matrix 3.

But those are series where the first was obviously the best...whereas TDK felt like more of an upswing.

I've always found The Last Crusade to be better than Temple of Doom, even though some of it does feel like a rehash of Raiders. But again, that's in a scenario where the first film is a masterpiece and the second is step down (even though I do like the second film).

I can't really think of a trilogy in which each installment got progressively better... except maybe Toy Story.

 

[NY1981]

Can we think of any third films tat we felt were better than the second?

For me, Back To The Future 3 I liked better than 2....and Matrix 3.

But those are series where the first was obviously the best...whereas TDK felt like more of an upswing.

Wow, really? Am I the only one who completely disagrees with BTTF 3 and Matrix 3 being better than part 2s. I feel part 2 of both those franchises were WAY better than part 3s.

 

[KalMart]

I agree about Matrix Revolutions, underrated movie IMO. I thought it had the most heart of the trilogy. Obviously the original is the most well-made of the bunch though.

I just found it much more fun on a popcorn level. The second was like pulling teeth.

I think Toy Story 3 was stronger than 2. Though it's a miracle 2 was any good in the first place with the crunch Pixar was under.

No way was 3 better than two, which I think is legendary. t:

Yeah, it was crazy that they redid it all with just a little time before release.

In terms of finding a trilogy where each successive film got better...that's a toughie.

I thought Star Trek Search For Spock was a pretty solid followup to such a huge predecessor. I guess Last Crusade for a lot of people was better than Temple of Doom, but I thought they were both crap compared to Raiders.

Star Wars prequels I thought were all crap, but it makes sense that the third was the 'least horrible', since that was what everyone was waiting for anyway.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Yeah, I'm done with Fudgie. I don't know why I even tried to debate with that... thing.

Spiderman didn't have a huge and successful marketing campaign?

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade
LOTR: Return of the King

 

[Liam_H]

I guess I'm in the minority that enjoyed Toy Story more over its sequels which just felt like a rehash of the original. But to be fair I haven't seen the 2nd one in awhile, also how 3 ended to wrap the trilogy was just fantastic.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

In terms of finding a trilogy where each successive film got better...that's a toughie. Arguably LOTR, but everyone seems to have a favorite. Plus, to me that is all one long film since it was shot continuously.

The Bourne Trilogy got better throughout. All three were great ... but Supremacy was better than Identity. Ultimatum was better than Supremacy.

On the other end of the spectrum ... the prequel trilogy of Star Wars got better as it went. None were all that good. Not near as good as the first trilogy ... but a steady improvement from TPM, to ATC, to ROTS.

The first three James Bond movies showed steady improvement -- Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger. It ain't a trilogy anymore, but it was when Goldfinger came out.

I would agree that Toy Story improved throughout.

Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

For trilogies where 3 is better than 2 ... there's Indiana Jones, and Die Hard. Nothing beats the original on those two, though.

KBZ

 

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah, there have been a number of trilogies where the third installment is the best. The problem has been that for SUPERHERO movies, part 3 has always stunk (unless you consider The Avengers the third Iron Man or Hulk movie... I don't, but I guess you could if you wanted to).

So if TDKR is able to break the mold, we'll finally... FINALLY have a truly great superhero trilogy. I just want that, really. More than a Justice League movie, more than another Superman movie, more than a Flash movie. Just a good third Batman movie. Come on, Nolan. Don't let us down. Please. PLEASE.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

The problem has been that for SUPERHERO movies, part 3 has always stunk (unless you consider The Avengers the third Iron Man or Hulk movie... I don't, but I guess you could if you wanted to).

So if TDKR is able to break the mold, we'll finally... FINALLY have a truly great superhero trilogy.

I think that's one reason Nolan took on a third movie. He liked the challenge.

KBZ

 

[Liam_H]

Could also have something to do with a that dump truck of money WB backed into his front lawn.

 

[KneelBeforeZod]

What's another few million to an already multi-millionaire? Nolan doesn't strike me as the type ... otherwise, he'd already be preparing to make a fourth Batman movie.

KBZ

 

[KalMart]

Well...he probably wouldn't have done it for free. But he was also at a point at which he could pass on it if he didn't want to do it, and his career would still be fine. So I think it's safe to assume that wanting to do another one for creative purposes was the main motivation.

Bucking a trend of three's or what have you...a challenge perhaps, but not the main target.

 

[cobrastatus]

Could also have something to do with a that dump truck of money WB backed into his front lawn.

This!

 

[BatLobster]

I don't think it's really about money in terms of hoping to clear a certain dollar amount. Nolan's wealth probably more than doubled with Inception due to his back end. He's in a position where he'll make a load of money on whatever project he does from here on out.

I think there's a huge amount of prestige that comes along with being the custodian for such a beloved character/mythology. Money comes with that. But being the director for Batman is a highly coveted position to be in. I don't think he wanted to piss on that, ultimately. Who wouldn't want to make movie that everyone wants to see? Any filmmaker has to love the idea of a hungry audience.

It was either make the third movie and end the story on your own terms, or let someone else take over your baby and do it for you. I think in addition to the creative challenge of making a good third movie, he felt an obligation to finish what he had started.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Yeah, there have been a number of trilogies where the third installment is the best. The problem has been that for SUPERHERO movies, part 3 has always stunk (unless you consider The Avengers the third Iron Man or Hulk movie... I don't, but I guess you could if you wanted to).

So if TDKR is able to break the mold, we'll finally... FINALLY have a truly great superhero trilogy. I just want that, really. More than a Justice League movie, more than another Superman movie, more than a Flash movie. Just a good third Batman movie. Come on, Nolan. Don't let us down. Please. PLEASE.

i think Nolan is going to deliver

WB supported him 110% of the way and gave him all the time he needed to come back to do the 3rd film. unlike how it went between Sony & Raimi and Fox & Singer, WB played it cool and let Nolan do whatever he wanted. there was no pressure at all from WB. Nolan was never contractually obliged to both The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. he came back because he had a story to tell. and he himself even stated, that he would only come back to do the 3rd film only if it's as good or better than TDK.

i've got faith