The Dark Knight Rises Why is everyone slamming TDKR?

[milost]

I don't know if it'd be better. I think it's easy to say stuff like that in hindsight.

Sure, Han isn't exactly a strong point in ROTJ is Ford seems to be phoning in his performance. But the other main cliffhanger of ESB (Luke and Vader) was resolved in a very satisfying way. I'd rather have a flawed Return of the Jedi than none at all. That's just me though.

When I watch Return of the Jedi, I literally watch it for Jabba's throne room and the Emperor's throne room basically.


The stuff with Vader is great, too bad the blu rays butchered it by having him scream "Nooo", "Noooooo" before he tosses the Emperor.

 

[JackWhite]

I still feel that the Dark Knight Trilogy were a great set of drama/action films...but horrible Batman movies.

The Dark Knight being the worst of the bunch. Batman was more of a guest star in that film and the fact they pissed all over the source material wasn't any better.

It was a huge dissapointment.

Funny how you say Batman was a guest star, yet Bale was in the suit more than he was outside of it in TDK. Actually, TDK has the most Batman screentime out of all of the Nolan films.

Comments like these make me wonder why people don't think first before they post.

 

[Snow Queen]

Funny how you say Batman was a guest star, yet Bale was in the suit more than he was outside of it in TDK. Actually, TDK has the most Batman screentime out of all of the Nolan films.

Comments like these make me wonder why people don't think first before they post.

Just from that comment, I'd think he's referring to Batman 89. Unlike in TDK, Joker was the main character and Batman was the guest star. In TDK, we got a real Batman in his prime focus.

 

[milost]

Nonsense.

The Joker isn't a main character in '89 Batman or The Dark Knight. However, the nature of the character and of the performances do make it appear the Joker has "stolen the show".

Is that not what the character does? The Joker is a popular character, just as popular as Batman. That's bound to happen. Dark Knight as a film might not be all about the Joker, but Dark Knight as an event certainly was. Not that was a bad thing by any means.



And compared to Batman Begins, it does feel like Bruce/Batman plays second fiddle to other characters in Dark Knight until the end of the film. Especially with heavy hitters like the Joker, Gordon and most importantly Dent. It's an ensemble piece.

 

[JackWhite]

Just from that comment, I'd think he's referring to Batman 89. Unlike in TDK, Joker was the main character and Batman was the guest star. In TDK, we got a real Batman in his prime focus.

Indeed.

Having so much "Bat-time" in TDK spoiled me for sure when I saw TDKR. But the one thing that always brings me back to TDKR, is Bruce Wayne; which it should be.

I'm still not sure how people were bored during the film until Batman showed up on the bat-pod. We got the awesome prologue, Bruce slowly coming back to the world, the great action sequence with Selina in the drive bar; which actually lead to Gordon nearly being killed and a great little scene with Bane underground. All the Bruce Selina stuff was great, not to mention the scenes with Bruce and Alfred. All of this was a great buildup to Bane's raid at the stock exchange/Batman's return scene.

The second act was definitely a little slow, at least with the stuff in Gotham. The Bruce stuff in the pit was awesome. Even if you flat out hated the second act, the journey that Bruce goes through in the pit is amazing. If you didn't feel anything when Bruce finally made the climb; then you must have not been invested in Bale's Bruce/Batman from the other films, lol.

I could watch that first act over, and over, and over again though.

 

[JackWhite]

Nonsense.

The Joker isn't a main character in '89 Batman or The Dark Knight. However, the nature of the character and of the performances do make it appear the Joker has "stolen the show".

Is that not what the character does? The Joker is a popular character, just as popular as Batman. That's bound to happen. Dark Knight as a film might not be all about the Joker, but Dark Knight as an event certainly was. Not that was a bad thing by any means.



And compared to Batman Begins, it does feel like Bruce/Batman plays second fiddle to other characters in Dark Knight until the end of the film. Especially with heavy hitters like the Joker, Gordon and most importantly Dent. It's an ensemble piece.

Heath's death definitely played a part in that. I remember after he died everything in the news/message boards were about his last performance, if he even finished all of his scenes in the film, and just how sad and tragic his death was in general. But still, nothing can take away from his amazing performance though.

BB is the more outward Bruce Wayne journey, like in TDKR, but I never felt he was second fiddle or anything. Batman is very active and proactive throughout TDK. It seems like whenever "Bruce" is in a scene, the very next scene we see him as "Batman".

 

[milost]

Nah, it was like that before his death too. Sure it played a part, but the wheels were already in motion for the Joker to overshadow everyone in the film before January of 2008.

Remember the posters? The marketing? The virals? "The Dark Knight" was literally synonymous with "the new one with the Joker". No doubt about it. Before and after, audiences were raving about the Joker.


I'm not downplaying Batman here, like I said, the ending (the last 6 minutes or so) is all about Batman and sums up the character in a brilliant way. Before that though? It's up in the air. Dent is a driving force, The Joker is a force to be reckoned with and Gordon has a HUGE role. You could easily sum up The Dark Knight as "how everyone in Gotham deals with the Joker", (including Batman) or the fall and corruption of Harvey Dent or the strain put on Gordon.

Overall though, I don't think there's an argument that the Joker is the piece that stands out. He ALWAYS does.


The same thing happened in the first Batman. Michael Keaton was no slouch as Bruce Wayne or Batman and the film delves heavily on the city reacting to him (maybe more so than the Joker, especially at the end).


But Nicholson, like Ledger has that flamboyance that the Joker needs and your eyes are drawn to him. The Joker steals the show, that just the nature of a killer crazed clown in a purple suit put up against a loner, brooding vigilante that doesn't have the luxury of friends.

 

[JackWhite]

I disagree about the Ledger hype. Sure, it was always going to be a very Joker-centric film in TDK, but Heaths death blew the hype and atmosphere for the film out of proportion. I remember people already claiming that the film would only be successful because of his untimely death almost instantly after Heath had passed away.

TDK, IMO, is still a film driven by both Batman himself and Dent. That is the foundation that the film is built on. The Joker is the perfect wildcard thrown into the mix.

 

[JackWhite]

Speaking of TDK, stumbled across this:

http://moviebob.blogspot.ca/2007/12/dark-knight-trailer-2.html

This part made me laugh:

01:21 - By Odin, Maggie Gyllenhaal is sexier fully-clothed from the neck-up then most women are buck-naked and fresh out of the tub. 100% improvement as a replacement for Katie Holmes.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Have you even seen Iron Man 3? Don't be so quick to write it off based on fan boy reactions.



I'd say Iron Man 3 and TDKR are pretty similar in most regards when it comes to the heroes journey and the villain plot twists and the fan outcry (WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO MANDARIN/BRUCE WAYNE RETIRED?) I bet it's as well received critically, give or take, and is a success box office wise.




Like I said, there was never a curse. Things just tend to get old after the second picture and fans get sick of it or it doesn't live up to what came before it.

Fan boy reactions? No.

Reviews? Oh yes, I've read plenty of those that have only put a stamp on what I would have thought the "twist" would have turned out to be, and of course the comedy element, [BLACKOUT]Pepper having Extremis and killing Killian [/BLACKOUT]. I'm sure I'll love the action and the CGI, but the story sounds terrible and I may use my free movie ticket to see it tomorrow night, so if you like...I won't continue to badmouth IM3 until tomorrow night when I see it

And...no, they're not being the same received. Check out metacritic and RT right now, lol.

I will say IM3 could definitely be a polarizing film and the first IM film in a group along with Batman Returns, Watchmen, TDKR(did I miss any?), but I can say at least with Bruce Wayne retiring, it was meant to give some closure....the idea of [BLACKOUT]Mandarin being just Aldrich Killian makes little to no sense and definitely brings up an inconsistency to the Ten Rings as a whole that goes back to the first film.[/BLACKOUT]

Plus, there was definitely a curse...for CBMs. Superman III, Batman Forever, X-Men 3: The Last Stand, Blade: Trinity, Spider-Man 3...oh, there was a curse alright.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The Joker isn't a main character in '89 Batman or The Dark Knight. However, the nature of the character and of the performances do make it appear the Joker has "stolen the show".

Jack Nicholson having top billing could sure suggest The Joker a main character in Batman.

 

[milost]

Jack Nicholson having top billing could sure suggest The Joker a main character in Batman.

Like Brando and Hackman in the first Superman film? Please, Christopher Reeve was the main character, the title character, just like Batman.

Nicholson got top billing because that was part of the deal, just like with Brando and Hackman. His name sold more so than Keaton's.




Edit adds:

Fan boy reactions? No.

Reviews? Oh yes, I've read plenty of those that have only put a stamp on what I would have thought the "twist" would have turned out to be, and of course the comedy element, [BLACKOUT]Pepper having Extremis and killing Killian [/BLACKOUT]. I'm sure I'll love the action and the CGI, but the story sounds terrible and I may use my free movie ticket to see it tomorrow night, so if you like...I won't continue to badmouth IM3 until tomorrow night when I see it

And...no, they're not being the same received. Check out metacritic and RT right now, lol.

I will say IM3 could definitely be a polarizing film and the first IM film in a group along with Batman Returns, Watchmen, TDKR(did I miss any?), but I can say at least with Bruce Wayne retiring, it was meant to give some closure....the idea of [BLACKOUT]Mandarin being just Aldrich Killian makes little to no sense and definitely brings up an inconsistency to the Ten Rings as a whole that goes back to the first film.[/BLACKOUT]

Plus, there was definitely a curse...for CBMs. Superman III, Batman Forever, X-Men 3: The Last Stand, Blade: Trinity, Spider-Man 3...oh, there was a curse alright.

Exactly, you haven't even seen the film and it already seems that you've formulated your own thoughts against it with and .

What reviews have you read, how do you know those plot points don't work? Until this morning, the reviews were practically shining on rottentomatoes and metacritic. It seemed to get hit hard when it came here in the States yesterday. It's a shame you had to look at all the spoilers before going in. Who knows, maybe if you went in without the word of mouth you might have felt differently? Ya never know. I went in not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised. "Greatest superhero film ever", no, not by a long shot but it was entertaining. It didn't offend me like it seems to have offended half the fan community.



As for the discussions against Iron Man 3 going on right now

Spoiler

not enough of Stark in the suit, lame villain twists, secret villain

, I've heard those same complaints about TDKR.



Oh and, Batman Forever (if people consider it the third Batman movie) wasn't received poorly back in the day. People ate it up and it was a critical and box office success. After Batman and Robin? During the advent of the internet and message boards? Now? That's a different story, but after it's release it was solid and fans seemed to have dug it. It was strong enough to get Batman and Robin made.


I'm not sure what the "curse" is. I guess now it just applies to comic book flicks? What is it, if fans don't seem to like the third installment it's a dud? How is this judged? Box office? Spider-Man 3 did pretty damn well. Seems like a lot of people were turned off because it didn't meet their expectations (myself included, I had trouble liking it), not that it was some awful travesty. So what constitutes as a curse?


And Blade Trinity? LOL, did people even care about the first two? I don't think they were received well in the first place. So Richard Pryor II, X3, and hell, I'll give you Spidey are the source of this so called curse? I think that's nonsense personally.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Like Brando and Hackman in the first Superman film? Please, Christopher Reeve was the main character, the title character, just like Batman.

Nicholson got top billing because that was part of the deal, just like with Brando and Hackman. His name sold more so than Keaton's.

Except the movie is more Joker's story than Batman's and I'm pretty sure Nicholson got the most screentime.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I disagree about the Ledger hype. Sure, it was always going to be a very Joker-centric film in TDK, but Heaths death blew the hype and atmosphere for the film out of proportion. I remember people already claiming that the film would only be successful because of his untimely death almost instantly after Heath had passed away.

TDK, IMO, is still a film driven by both Batman himself and Dent. That is the foundation that the film is built on. The Joker is the perfect wildcard thrown into the mix.

Yes, but they were wrong. There are still idiots that say TDK would have bombed had Ledger lived. I remember many of those same posters on this very board saying that Green Lantern was going to outgross TDK anyways. They were against the Nolan Batman films and would use any excuse to try to diminish his accomplishment.

TDK was always going to be a huge success. The hype was through the roof long before Ledger died.

 

[milost]

Except the movie is more Joker's story than Batman's and I'm pretty sure Nicholson got the most screentime.

Batman has the most screen time in '89 Batman than any other Batman in any of the 7 Batman films, not including Bruce Wayne.


Now nobody has timed the Joker/Napier scenes for screen time but I'd imagine Batman/Bruce has just as much if not more, not to mention al the scenes that mention/discuss him.

The film opens up with BATMAN, the intro is all about him from the stories they tell each other to his first appearance. Then we're introduced to Napier, Dent, Alicia, we hear about Grissom. Then after more Batman talk we're introduced to Knox and Eckhart . . . who are talking about Batman. It goes back to Napier a bit but then it's all about Bruce Wayne. Knox and Vicki looking for info on Batman. The city reacting to Batman. Batman "stealing Joker's press" and foiling his plans again and again. Vicki following Bruce trying to "get in". Bruce trying to ppen up a bit. Bruce thinking back to the night his parents were killed. Etc. etc.

Joker chews up the screen but that's the nature of the character. What more of Batman/Bruce did there need to be? Should there have been a full blown dialogue discussion in the descent into mystery scene with Vicki? Should Batman have talked more? That would have been against his angst filled, brooding loner type characterization.

I never understood the complaint of lack of Batman/Bruce in '89. Returns I can see, it is more about Catwoman and Penguin to an extent to mirror what's going on with Bruce. But the first one? It's definitely balanced. I never understood calling it "The Joker" like some folks say.


Joker "steals the show" in just about every thing he's featured in. In a Batman vs. Joker picture like Dark Knight or '89 he's bound to stand out, from broadcasts and floats to announcements, bank heists and party crashing. Batman doesn't/shouldn't do this. He's mysterious, cloaked in darkness waiting to strike. When you have him out in the open talking and talking it gets into a ridiculous Batman and Robin territory.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Like Brando and Hackman in the first Superman film? Please, Christopher Reeve was the main character, the title character, just like Batman.

Nicholson got top billing because that was part of the deal, just like with Brando and Hackman. His name sold more so than Keaton's.

I don't blame you for not reading.

could sure suggest

I'm not saying Nicholson is definitely the main character, only one could suggest such when nowadays, the actor playing the villain isn't received top billing in modern CBMs.

Edit adds:





Exactly, you haven't even seen the film and it already seems that you've formulated your own thoughts against it with and .

What reviews have you read, how do you know those plot points don't work? Until this morning, the reviews were practically shining on rottentomatoes and metacritic. It seemed to get hit hard when it came here in the States yesterday. It's a shame you had to look at all the spoilers before going in. Who knows, maybe if you went in without the word of mouth you might have felt differently? Ya never know. I went in not expecting much but was pleasantly surprised. "Greatest superhero film ever", no, not by a long shot but it was entertaining. It didn't offend me like it seems to have offended half the fan community.

Boy, you must be slow on the "interwebs" if you never ran across certain articles on what's "wrong" with IM3, lol. Go do some searching for yourself, and then you will find out

As for the discussions against Iron Man 3 going on right now

Spoiler

not enough of Stark in the suit, lame villain twists, secret villain

, I've heard those same complaints about TDKR.

Good for you?

Oh and, Batman Forever (if people consider it the third Batman movie) wasn't received poorly back in the day. People ate it up and it was a critical and box office success. After Batman and Robin? During the advent of the internet and message boards? Now? That's a different story, but after it's release it was solid and fans seemed to have dug it. It was strong enough to get Batman and Robin made.


I'm not sure what the "curse" is. I guess now it just applies to comic book flicks? What is it, if fans don't seem to like the third installment it's a dud? How is this judged? Box office? Spider-Man 3 did pretty damn well. Seems like a lot of people were turned off because it didn't meet their expectations (myself included, I had trouble liking it), not that it was some awful travesty. So what constitutes as a curse?


And Blade Trinity? LOL, did people even care about the first two? I don't think they were received well in the first place. So Richard Pryor II, X3, and hell, I'll give you Spidey are the source of this so called curse? I think that's nonsense personally.

Lol, marvelous job in trying to create some reasons why the third acts fail...but the fact that they did when the previous two films in each respective series were doing so well, that means something went wrong...over and over. Hence, there was a curse that no director was able to "break"...until last year t:

 

[milost]

Thanks for calling me slow bud, I appreciate it. Iron Man 3 has a pretty damn good critical reception right now. General audiences seem to dig it. Yeah there's the issue with the twist and how it's rubbed half of the fan base the wrong way, but does that really kill an entire film for everyone.


Or maybe I should play the "vocal minority card" heh Anno. Lol





As for the "cuuuurse". Blade movies were considered "meh" before the third flick. People were cool with Batman Forever during and after it's release until B&R and forum communities. It didn't fail at box office or reception. I don't agree with it but some thought it was fresh and an improvement over Batman Returns.

Superman III, nobody cares about that. Those last two flicks could have been direct to home video they were so bad. It wasn't a "curse" the producers just didn't give a crap and it shows.

So your director comment. Only Raimi and Nolan have made three comic book films. Your point?


There is no "curse" or luck. Just something people coined for a few mediocre/forgettable comic book films.


Not sure why people are so obsessed with the number three and threequels and trilogies.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Thanks for calling me slow bud, I appreciate it. Iron Man 3 has a pretty damn good critical reception right now. General audiences seem to dig it. Yeah there's the issue with the twist and how it's rubbed half of the fan base the wrong way, but does that really kill an entire film for everyone.

Well when you don't pay attention, I'm gonna call you out on it, lol.

And 78% is iffy especially when Iron Man 2 is at a 73%.

Or maybe I should play the "vocal minority card" heh Anno. Lol

You can if you want to. Besides, I believe I said I have a problem with Iron Man 3. I've never said anything about how everyone hates the film

As for the "cuuuurse". Blade movies were considered "meh" before the third flick. People were cool with Batman Forever during and after it's release until B&R and forum communities. It didn't fail at box office or reception. I don't agree with it but some thought it was fresh and an improvement over Batman Returns.

Superman III, nobody cares about that. Those last two flicks could have been direct to home video they were so bad. It wasn't a "curse" the producers just didn't give a crap and it shows.

So your director comment. Only Raimi and Nolan have made three comic book films. Your point?


There is no "curse" or luck. Just something people coined for a few mediocre/forgettable comic book films.


Not sure why people are so obsessed with the number three and threequels and trilogies.

Again, all just excuses in trying to make a point. A lot of fanboys have been calling it a curse for years and years.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

At the very least in Batman 89, Nicholson is a co-lead. I'm not about to do a running tally of his screentime in comparison to Keaton, but it is comparable even if it doesn't exceed it. Furthermore, it is the Joker that drives the story with the Batman character mostly staying in the shadows. It is not nearly as skewed as in Batman Returns which is dominated by the villains, but the Batman character is still treated in a similar matter. I actually don't have a problem with it in the first film. I have a great admiration for what Tim Burton did with the character, but it is what it is. It isn't a great insult that Nicholson is listed first in the credits. He is not a big name actor in an extended cameo like Marlon Brando in Superman, nor even a clear supporting character like Heath Ledger's version of the character in TDK.

Joker has really only stolen the show outside the comics when he has been played by Nicholson, Ledger, or Mark Hamill, IMO. In the Adam West series for example, he was always overshadowed by Burgess Meredith's Penguin and Frank Gorshin's Riddler.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Oh and, Batman Forever (if people consider it the third Batman movie) wasn't received poorly back in the day. People ate it up and it was a critical and box office success. After Batman and Robin? During the advent of the internet and message boards? Now? That's a different story, but after it's release it was solid and fans seemed to have dug it. It was strong enough to get Batman and Robin made.

You are absolutely right. In particular, it was widely praised for returning to the light-hearted fun of the TV series after the 'dark and depressing' Burton films. In the mid-90s, after the end of the Cold War this was the type of entertainment that people were looking for. It goes beyond Batman. You saw the exact same thing with the James Bond series with Pierce Brosnan taking over for Timothy Dalton. If you look at all the top blockbusters of the time, they are fluffier fare (ex. Independence Day) than audiences like today. Batman & Robin did a lot to change that, especially with it coming out at a time when the Internet was rapidly growing, but the big change seemed to start in May 1999 with the darker The Matrix being far more well received than The Phantom Menace.

Now people hate Batman Forever (and Independence Day, Twister, etc.) because that type of film is completely out of style.

 

[milost]

A
Joker has really only stolen the show outside the comics when he has been played by Nicholson, Ledger, or Mark Hamill, IMO. In the Adam West series for example, he was always overshadowed by Burgess Meredith's Penguin and Frank Gorshin's Riddler.

Spot on about the 60s show. That's an exception I agree with.


Frank Gorshin Riddler always felt like Batman and Robin's main arch enemy. Meredith's great Penguin too.

 

[Anno_Domini]

So I finally saw IM3...can I say I didn't like it now or no?

It was a great film if you're just wanting to see some excellent acting or some nifty effects. Move over the Hulk v Abomination fight, because the final battle in IM3 has become my favorite set piece of the MCU films.

 

[JackWhite]

So I finally saw IM3...can I say I didn't like it now or no?

It was a great film if you're just wanting to see some excellent acting or some nifty effects. Move over the Hulk v Abomination fight, because the final battle in IM3 has become my favorite set piece of the MCU films.

I've never been really big on the Iron Man films, although I did enjoy the first one. Interestingly enough, IM3 looks like it has a lot of parallels to TDKR - Hero's journey ending, more of the "man" and not the suit, really introspective, so I'm very intrigued by this setup.

So how similar is Tony's arc to Bruce's for the third film? I don't care about spoilers because I won't be seeing this until it's released on DVD and my buddy at work gets me a copy. Spoiler tags of course though.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I've never been really big on the Iron Man films, although I did enjoy the first one. Interestingly enough, IM3 looks like it has a lot of parallels to TDKR - Hero's journey ending, more of the "man" and not the suit, really introspective, so I'm very intrigued by this setup.

So how similar is Tony's arc to Bruce's for the third film? I don't care about spoilers because I won't be seeing this until it's released on DVD and my buddy at work gets me a copy. Spoiler tags of course though.

Spoiler

Tony is definitely much, much, much more proactive obviously in IM3 and I loved that he continue his work while dealing with PTSD, although any resolution from that is what kills Tony's arc. The PTSD is "cured", and Stark decides to destroy his armor while getting rid of his mini arc reactor in exchange to live happily(as well as making Pepper happy). I get it, Pepper was worried sick about Tony, but I still don't get the reasoning of Stark doing all of this. Getting rid of everything resembles so much like Bruce Wayne walking away from Gotham City, but there's a reason why Bruce should have and Tony shouldn't have.

These Iron Man films are meant to be in some huge universe where there's going to be an Avengers 2, and Stark getting rid of everything just doesn't add up even if "Tony Stark will return". And needless to say, Stark getting rid of the mini arc just makes Iron Man 2's plot even worse when Stark could've gotten rid of the thing in the second flick.

Stark gets rid of everything for a girl, or at least that's what I took out of it.

Bruce gets rid of his old life because he needed to move on.

Tony Stark, imo, did not need to really move on.

 

[the last son]

I've tried to tell people that the marvel movies while big now and certainly cashed in big time are going to be the downfall of comic movies. Not taking any chances, little to no themes, and just catering to children. The avengers in my eyes was just as cheeseballish as Batman and Robin. Stupid jokes and just a movie that was written by middle school kids. I may not like all the DC movies but I give them all the credit in the world for at least letting adults enjoy these characters. Marvel movies outside of the first two spiderman movies have taken ZERO RISKS and it's doing more harm than good for the art of comic book movies.