The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 3

[shauner111]

I'm actually going to be open minded to this Joker. I'm intrigued about this stylish, businessman Joker. It's all about execution.

So I watched the first hour and a half of the ultimate cut last night. I'll likely finish the rest tonight. Even though the Knightmare sequence is random and the batmobile chase is useless and boring for such a fast paced chase...so far...I'm genuinely surprised.

Shape, I told you I would be honest and I am. I thought the editing and pacing has been a massive improvement so far. Scenes are placed in different order, the right way. It's not just extended scenes or more blood. I'm telling you this makes the score more enjoyable because there's more to that as well. Everything flows so much better.

I'm sure I'm still going to complain after watching the second half because of Doomsday etc but I was actually enjoying what I was watching last night. Of course Cavill is still bland and Affleck is very sleepy which is what the character calls for, but I thought the new scenes with Clark made Cavill come off...well, better!

I can't believe WB. They truly took a dump all over this movie. I mean, the theatrical cut is the work of a butcher if you look at the editing and compare the two. I was baffled last night.

I won't get behind Doomsday or Batman killing the way he does or the Justice League videos or the Martha bit. I doubt I'll be calling this a good movie by tonight, because most of the stuff I don't like happens to be in the second half of the movie. But damnit, I can see it going up from 40 percent to at least a 60. I'm not joking. I said I would not hate on this cut for the sake of hating on Snyder. I was also not as bothered by Lex/Jesse (is it because I'm used to him by now or something else?).

The desert scene, new prison scenes, I was actually locked in.

 

[The Shape]

I'm actually going to be open minded to this Joker. I'm intrigued about this stylish, businessman Joker. It's all about execution.

So I watched the first hour and a half of the ultimate cut last night. I'll likely finish the rest tonight. Even though the Knightmare sequence is random and the batmobile chase is useless and boring for such a fast paced chase...so far...I'm genuinely surprised.

Shape, I told you I would be honest and I am. I thought the editing and pacing has been a massive improvement so far. Scenes are placed in different order, the right way. It's not just extended scenes or more blood. I'm telling you this makes the score more enjoyable because there's more to that as well. Everything flows so much better.

I'm sure I'm still going to complain after watching the second half because of Doomsday etc but I was actually enjoying what I was watching last night. Of course Cavill is still bland and Affleck is very sleepy which is what the character calls for, but I thought the new scenes with Clark made Cavill come off...well, better!

I can't believe WB. They truly took a dump all over this movie. I mean, the theatrical cut is the work of a butcher if you look at the editing and compare the two. I was baffled last night.

I won't get behind Doomsday or Batman killing the way he does or the Justice League videos or the Martha bit. I doubt I'll be calling this a good movie by tonight, because most of the stuff I don't like happens to be in the second half of the movie. But damnit, I can see it going up from 40 percent to at least a 60. I'm not joking. I said I would not hate on this cut for the sake of hating on Snyder. I was also not as bothered by Lex/Jesse (is it because I'm used to him by now or something else?).

The desert scene, new prison scenes, I was actually locked in.

Glad to see you gave some of it a shot so far, and honestly, watching the UC from start to finish is where someone would see and feel the biggest difference overall from the TC. Even some of the things you don't like in the second half of the film (like the finale and epilogue) play better and have more payoff/weight in the UC because of everything that comes before, the difference in flow/pacing/editing, the added character beats and bits of dialogue, etc.

 

[shauner111]

I was 2 hours into it, not an hour and a half like i thought, so i just finished watching the rest.

I usually rate out of 5 stars. So right now the theatrical cut for BvS is 2/5. Ultimate Cut for BvS is 3/5.

Besides Batman's actions during the batmobile chase, the problems in this Ultimate Cut really only begin at the 2 hour mark. That last hour is plagued with issues even if the pacing makes it more watchable. But i can stand by the first 2 hours, with only some nitpicks here and there. If they cut the Knightmare, Batmobile, took out some of those eye-rolling lines from Batman during the big showdown and a better execution to the Martha reveal...the movie up until that point would have been fantastic. Then if they came up with something better than Trinity vs Doomsday for the finale (still a dumb move on the part of Snyder/Terrio), this film had the potential to be something incredible. There's so much nonsense in that Doomsday fight, although the new Doomsday shots made that fight flow much better. There's so many bonehead maneuvers that disappoints me now more than it did back in March. How did that stuff get past them before shooting? Supes diving in to get the spear, Batman telling Alfred through exposition that he must do the ******ed thing and lure the beast to the city instead of the other way around, Lois tripping all over the place and generally being stupid, and finally Supes sacrificing himself.

What a shame.

Seeing who shows up at Clark's funeral was a good example of adding a nice touch here and there to add some damn emotion/weight to what happened. I can't believe they chopped this to bits and thought the general audience would go for it. Who cares if it's 3 hours? This is the kind of s**t that makes me want to rewatch TDKR because i feel like the editing was the one thing that stops me from giving Rises a perfect score.

 

[The Shape]

I was 2 hours into it, not an hour and a half like i thought, so i just finished watching the rest.

I usually rate out of 5 stars. So right now the theatrical cut for BvS is 2/5. Ultimate Cut for BvS is 3/5.

Besides Batman's actions during the batmobile chase, the problems in this Ultimate Cut really only begin at the 2 hour mark. That last hour is plagued with issues even if the pacing makes it more watchable. But i can stand by the first 2 hours, with only some nitpicks here and there. If they cut the Knightmare, Batmobile, took out some of those eye-rolling lines from Batman during the big showdown and a better execution to the Martha reveal...the movie up until that point would have been fantastic. Then if they came up with something better than Trinity vs Doomsday for the finale (still a dumb move on the part of Snyder/Terrio), this film had the potential to be something incredible. There's so much nonsense in that Doomsday fight, although the new Doomsday shots made that fight flow much better. There's so many bonehead maneuvers that disappoints me now more than it did back in March. How did that stuff get past them before shooting? Supes diving in to get the spear, Batman telling Alfred through exposition that he must do the ******ed thing and lure the beast to the city instead of the other way around, Lois tripping all over the place and generally being stupid, and finally Supes sacrificing himself.

What a shame.

Seeing who shows up at Clark's funeral was a good example of adding a nice touch here and there to add some damn emotion/weight to what happened. I can't believe they chopped this to bits and thought the general audience would go for it. Who cares if it's 3 hours? This is the kind of s**t that makes me want to rewatch TDKR because i feel like the editing was the one thing that stops me from giving Rises a perfect score.[/QUOTE]


Fair enough, and it really is a shame that a PG-13 version of this UC wasn't released. It is much more complete and a stronger film in more ways than one, and I think even people who fundamentally dislike some characterizations and plot developments can admit that. The theatrical cut is a hack-job in terms of editing. The UC makes that even more apparent and glaring than before.

TDKR has some questionable editing, but I can't imagine it was cut down and changed nearly as much as BvS was. I can't remember off the top of my head, but were there any full subplots or chunks of existing scenes cut from TDKR?

 

[shauner111]

No not like BvS but Nolan should have let a few scenes breathe here and there.

Then you have the tunnel scene which is so epic and memorable that I give it a pass, but it's still a head scratcher.

 

[Monochron]

Finally watched the UC of BvS. Instead of being bored for two hours and thirty minutes this time I was bored for a full three hours.

 

[JackWhite]

I'm not sure when I will get around to watching the ultimate cut, but I will sooner or later.

So in the extended warehouse fight, does Batfleck just shank that guy he has pinned to the wall with the knife?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Joker's a business man? Good god

Changes in adaption isn't a bad thing. Kingpin -for example- isn't the mama boy they displayed in the show, or someone who loves his city and wants good things for it, but does it through illegal means.

But they better make this a good change.

 

[SuperSanchez]

Changes in adaption isn't a bad thing. Kingpin -for example- isn't the mama boy they displayed in the show, or someone who loves his city and wants good things for it, but does it through illegal means.

But they better make this a good change.

Daredevil had amazing writers, I don't think he will be as good as D'Onforios Kingpin

 

[titansupes]

I'm not concerned about the business man/twisted fashion loving aspects of this Joker just yet.

 

[AnneFan]

I'm not sure when I will get around to watching the ultimate cut, but I will sooner or later.

So in the extended warehouse fight, does Batfleck just shank that guy he has pinned to the wall with the knife?

In the shoulder just like the TC, but after dealing with a thug, he turns around and stares him down again in the UC.

 

[BatLobster]

The Alamo Drafthouse near me is playing Mask of the Phantasm in 35mm on August 3rd. Already got my tix. Finally going to be able to move past the regret of not seeing it on the big screen as a kid. t:

 

[The Joker]

Changes in adaption isn't a bad thing.

Depends on what the change is.

Kingpin -for example- isn't the mama boy they displayed in the show, or someone who loves his city and wants good things for it, but does it through illegal means.

That's not a change that alters his character in any significant way. It just adds a human element to Fisk. Making Joker a successful business man, who runs his criminal enterprise like a successful corporation man, this is the antithesis of how the Joker runs anything.

That is a fact.

But they better make this a good change.

Apparently Letoker owns a nightclub. Now what other Batman villain famously owns a nightclub and runs it like a successful business. He's short, fat, waddles, and has a thing for birds and umbrellas.

If they wanted a villain like that, they should have just done Penguin. He was in Assault on Arkham. He'd have fit well into a SS movie.

 

[Greens]

Apparently Letoker owns a nightclub. Now what other Batman villain famously owns a nightclub and runs it like a successful business. He's short, fat, waddles, and has a thing for birds and umbrellas.

If they wanted a villain like that, they should have just done Penguin. He was in Assault on Arkham. He'd have fit well into a SS movie.

Come on, that's short-sighted and you know it. Penguin doesn't come with the Joker package. They're vastly different characters and a nightclub doesn't change that.

 

[The Joker]

Come on, that's short-sighted and you know it.

No, I don't know it. Explain how it's short sighted. If you want a Batman villain with a night club, and runs his enterprises like a successful business man, who would you think of first; Joker or Penguin? If you say Joker then you're not being short sighted, it's just plain denial.

Penguin doesn't come with the Joker package.

What's the Joker package in this movie? Dressed like a drug dealer pimp? Covered in tattoos? Running a night club and his criminal enterprises like, and I quote, a successful business man who is in charge of a big successful corporation.

That describes the Joker to you? Can you point to me where this characterization is in the comics or other media? You can even apply the driving flashy swanky cars to Penguin;

Joker's cars usually have some kind of clown motif to them. Not flashy looking pimp mobiles.

They're vastly different characters and a nightclub doesn't change that.

Yes, it does. Palming off other villain traits onto characters it's totally out of character for changes it.

 

[Greens]

No, I don't know it. Explain how it's short sighted. If you want a Batman villain with a night club, and runs his enterprises like a successful business man, who would you think of first; Joker or Penguin? If you say Joker then you're not being short sighted, it's just plain denial.



What's the Joker package in this movie? Dressed like a drug dealer pimp? Covered in tattoos? Running a night club and his criminal enterprises like, and I quote, a successful business man who is in charge of a big successful corporation.

That describes the Joker to you? Can you point to me where this characterization is in the comics or other media? You can even apply the driving flashy swanky cars to Penguin;

Joker's cars usually have some kind of clown motif to them. Not flashy looking pimp mobiles.



Yes, it does. Palming off other villain traits onto characters it's totally out of character for changes it.

So let me get this straight. You're saying that if Ayer had replaced Joker with Penguin, the movie would have been exactly the same? That's what I got from your post, and that's why I called it short-sighted. Obviously Ayer didn't want Penguin because he's clearly exploring the Harley/Joker relationship. Where would that be with Penguin? Obviously he didn't want Penguin because he lacks the unpredictability and omni-presence Joker has. Where would that be with Penguin? The Joker package is Harley and every single thing he brings to the table. Where would the chemical bath scene be, where would the tuxedo-helicopter scene be, where would the crazy Arkham break-out be?

 

[The Joker]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that if Ayer had replaced Joker with Penguin, the movie would have been exactly the same? That's what I got from your post, and that's why I called it short-sighted. Obviously Ayer didn't want Penguin because he's clearly exploring the Harley/Joker relationship. Where would that be with Penguin? Obviously he didn't want Penguin because he lacks the unpredictability and omni-presence Joker has. Where would that be with Penguin? The Joker package is Harley and every single thing he brings to the table. Where would the chemical bath scene be, where would the tuxedo-helicopter scene be, where would the crazy Arkham break-out be?

Of course not. I'm saying he's lumbering Joker with major traits that are out of character to him and more suited to The Penguin.

They could have done what ever is they're doing with the Joker/Harley relationship, and had Penguin fill in the entrepreneur business man villain role.

Lets not pretend they couldn't have had a scene of Penguin in a souped up helicopter. BTAS did a whole episode of that: http://www.worldsfinestonline.com/WF/batman/btas/episodes/blindasabat/

Or in Arkham and stage a mass break out:

These are not things alien to Penguin, unlike business man night club owner Joker.

 

[Greens]

And instead, they've rolled these aspects into one character. You see a problem with it, I don't. I think you're being way too stubborn, and you think Ayer is doing a disservice to the character.

We're not going to convince each other, which is fine because the movie needs to do the convincing.

 

[The Joker]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You come in here telling me I'm being short sighted because I don't view Joker as something he's not, and never has been.

So if you're trying to convince me then yes, move on.

 

[Shikamaru]

I never liked the idea of Joker being a mob boss either. It's one of the things I disliked about Nicholson's Joker.

 

[Greens]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. You come in here telling me I'm being short sighted because I don't view Joker as something he's not, and never has been.

So if you're trying to convince me then yes, move on.

Hope you enjoy the movie.

 

[Elevator Man]

The Alamo Drafthouse near me is playing Mask of the Phantasm in 35mm on August 3rd. Already got my tix. Finally going to be able to move past the regret of not seeing it on the big screen as a kid. t:

Lucky. t: I would love to see MOTP on the big screen some day myself. Back in '94' as a reward for getting the honor roll my dad was planning to take me and my brother to see it in theaters but unfortunately never got around to seeing it till home video.

 

[The Shape]

Of course not. I'm saying he's lumbering Joker with major traits that are out of character to him and more suited to The Penguin.

It seems you're looking at this the wrong way, or selectively. You're taking a surface-level description of something this Joker does in SS ("runs a business") and drawing a parallel between him and The Penguin as if this somehow would make them the same or interchangeable. "This Joker runs a criminal business, which is something The Penguin is typically known for, so they could or should have just used The Penguin instead instead of adding this facet to The Joker."

You're forgetting or ignoring that fact that "businessman" isn't really a character trait, and despite the fact that this Joker and The Penguin both run some sort of criminal business, they have completely different personalities and defining character traits. Because of this, they would both handle their business differently, act completely differently, interact differently with other characters, and each bring something different to a story. The fact that this Joker makes money illegitimately, doesn't burn it to send a message, and likes flashy things doesn't mean that all of his actual key character/personality traits won't be on full display.

When I say character traits, I'm referring to adjectives which describe a character and his/her personality. For instance, some would describe the Joker by saying he's: bad, evil, wild, maniacal, unpredictable, wicked, cruel, selfish, narcissistic, distrustful, humorous, fearless, bold, impulsive, calculating, immoral, spiteful, imaginative, violent, creepy, duplicitous, bizarre, remorseless, etc.

It's not like he would suddenly become a different character altogether and lose everything that makes him unique because of his involvement with a crime ring. The ways in which he successfully runs his "business" and operates could be completely unique and Joker-ish, in and of itself.

Edit: And by the way, if the fact that he runs a business winds up hindering or neutering The Joker character in some way, turns him into something he's not, or erases some of his defining characteristics, I'll be among the first to cry foul.

 

[The Joker]

Hope you enjoy the movie.

Thank you.

It seems you're looking at this the wrong way, or selectively.

Then you're getting the wrong impression. Not looking at it your way is not the wrong way, or selectively.

You're taking a surface-level description of something this Joker does in SS ("runs a business") and drawing a parallel between him and The Penguin as if this somehow would make them the same or interchangeable. "This Joker runs a criminal business, which is something The Penguin is typically known for, so they could or should have just used The Penguin instead instead of adding this facet to The Joker."

You're forgetting or ignoring that fact that "businessman" isn't really a character trait, and despite the fact that this Joker and The Penguin both run some sort of criminal business, they have completely different personalities and defining character traits. Because of this, they would both handle their business differently, act completely differently, interact differently with other characters, and each bring something different to a story. The fact that this Joker makes money illegitimately, doesn't burn it to send a message, and likes flashy things doesn't mean that all of his actual key character/personality traits won't be on full display.

Of course business man is a character trait. The very fact they describe how he runs his business akin to someone who runs a very successful corporation is giving you an analogy of how he runs his business. That's describing traits of the character in how he does things.

It's like when someone describes Joker as an anarchist, that's a character trait. It describes what they do and how they do it, just like Letoker being a business man akin to one that runs a very successful big corporation.

Him being flashy, crazy, or a killer doesn't alter the fact Joker is doing something that's totally out of character for him.

When I say character traits, I'm referring to adjectives which describe a character and his/her personality. For instance, some would describe the Joker by saying he's: bad, evil, wild, maniacal, unpredictable, wicked, cruel, selfish, narcissistic, distrustful, humorous, fearless, bold, impulsive, calculating, immoral, spiteful, imaginative, violent, creepy, duplicitous, bizarre, remorseless, etc.

It's not like he would suddenly become a different character altogether and lose everything that makes him unique because of his involvement with a crime ring. The ways in which he successfully runs his "business" and operates could be completely unique and Joker-ish, in and of itself.

Having those character traits doesn't make any difference. The very fact Joker is running a night club (or clubs) is for a start a huge deviation. Since when has Joker ever shown any interest in running something as boring and mundane as that?

That to me is something that already makes the character seem totally off in who he is. Ignoring the awful Joker design, and speaking strictly as a character, who here can honestly say they equate Joker to be a night club owner and business man? Nobody, because it's not who the character is.

Penguin could still be a vain, greedy, bird loving villain, but if they started having him dabble in schemes of trying to patent fish with his face, or break people's minds to prove they're all crazy deep down, or just wreak anarchy in Gotham to prove a point, that would be a totally off characterization for him, regardless of how much he was still the pompous, elegant, bird loving, umbrella wielding Penguin in personality.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Spoiler

Depends on what the change is.


That's not a change that alters his character in any significant way. It just adds a human element to Fisk. Making Joker a successful business man, who runs his criminal enterprise like a successful corporation man, this is the antithesis of how the Joker runs anything.

That is a fact.

Apparently Letoker owns a nightclub. Now what other Batman villain famously owns a nightclub and runs it like a successful business. He's short, fat, waddles, and has a thing for birds and umbrellas.

If they wanted a villain like that, they should have just done Penguin. He was in Assault on Arkham. He'd have fit well into a SS movie.

I love to take these things with a grain of salt until proven to be true or different.