The Dark Knight Rises You Have My Permission To Lounge - Part 9

[shauner111]

I still like the Batman Forever suits!

 

[OutOfBoose]

I think BF suits have their advantages. I think they're sleek and well-balanced, great frame. Shiny. But overly sexualized with all those nipples and oily fake muscles. It's the problem that I have with 89 suit, to a less extent. I like that BR and BB use a more stylized armor plate kind of torso.

On the other hand it fits over the top gay-ish tone of the film.

 

[DoomRulz]

Bat-suits in general are just really hard to do apparently. There's never been one that approached a level of near-universal regard as the one as close to perfection as you can do live action. Part of that is probably the fact that we still haven't moved on from rubber. The body suit in BVS was getting there, but it was still underlaid with rubber musculature and the cowl was this thick thing that looked like it was swallowing Affleck's face. And then they had to go full Schumacher in JL, which was not at all helped by the brightened color correction in post. It looked cheap. Say what you want about the TDK suit, but it looked like a functioning suit of high-tech armor. And it was the first to incorporate cloth.

I've always felt that the first Burton suit was the best looking one. Especially in low-light, Keaton looked downright menacing. He just needed to be able to turn his head, lol

 

[The Chris]

Out of the Two Keaton ones i always preferred the Returns suit because of the look of the armor, the better Bat logo and i think the cowl looks a little better around Keaton's face.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

^I agree with that assessment, although the belly flaps look off to me.

Honestly very lucky to be with a woman who supports my passions and (thanks to me) shares most of my interests in terms of film and TV. She's always down for whatever and will unbegrudgingly watch anything genre-related that I come up with or need to see -- although she does draw the line at things like DTV animated movies, which I wouldn't really want to watch with her anyway.

This is great luck.

The arkham suit and model looks so freakishly ridiculous.

Spoiler

I like this suit, including the ridiculous gauntlets, the mask horns are too awfully long for my liking.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I still like the Batman Forever suits!

I love the Sonar suit. The suit up sequence is pretty cool except for the Bat-butt shot.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I like the one from Batman & Robin, not the infamous ice suit, the initial one he had on most of the movie.

 

[The Chris]

I really like when the cape is over the shoulders. For Keaton that was almost always. My favorite scene for the TDK suit is probably Rises where he gives Catwoman the batpod. Good lord the cape in that scene. I was honestly very disappointed when they went back to the leather cape for the DCEU, especially considering Superman's cape.

 

[Brother Jack]

After having the cloth cape in TDKT I kind of hate the leather one now. They only way they can get it to flow and undulate like the cloth one is with CGI.

 

[The Shape]

The Panther suit was sleek as hell, and also badass when it needed to be.

 

[The Shape]

The Sonar suit was also great. I actually loved that it was silver and somewhat shiny.

It's the true precursor to the Begins suit.

Spoiler

 

[OutOfBoose]

I there a zipper on his buttcrack? lmao

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Anyone ever read this? Makes quite a credible case of why TDKR has deep, terrible problems. Almost on a Snyder scale.

http://sequart.org/magazine/13903/why-the-dark-knight-rises-fails/

Start from reading 3a. Everything before that are nitpicks.

 

[shauner111]

I stopped reading when it said Bruce quips about the room he was born in, but it's not the same Wayne Manor. Umm maybe it's because they rebuilt it the exact same way you dummy.

TDKR should never be mentioned in the same sentence as Snyder. I honestly won't read criticisms of the trilogy anymore. I've read them all.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Anyone ever read this? Makes quite a credible case of why TDKR has deep, terrible problems. Almost on a Snyder scale.

http://sequart.org/magazine/13903/why-the-dark-knight-rises-fails/

There are deep terrible problems and it's not news to me. That's why I was taken aback by feverish hate towards BvS, which is also a troubled and contrived film. TDKR literally got a pass because Nolan. Not because the film approaches the quality of BB or TDK. Also, I think, TDKR is more entertaining on the surface level and doesn't have such a grim and mean attitude. It's also more inclusive.

The article itself is too opinionated and nitpicks stuff too much. But major problems are spot on.

 

[BatLobster]

I mean, I was on the internet in 2012, so I've pretty much read variations on most of the arguments there. Pretty sure I've read that one before. Not gonna get in the minutiae of arguing things point by point, I've done that enough for a lifetime haha.

As far as his political argument-- I can understand why he and others end up reading the film that way, but I still think it's a misreading that unfairly tasks the movie with resolving really tough social issues going back to the dawn of time that are simply not resolvable in any single film, never mind a $250 million 4 quadrant superhero film that is putting an ending on the story of a beloved cultural icon. Or at the very least, I think he has a deeply flawed understanding of what the political "aims" of the trilogy were.

What I loved so much about ALL 3 Nolan films was that Batman's actions were presented in a way where you could enjoy and revel in their dark heroics, even if they didn't necessarily line up with your own morals or politics. You could engage with Batman in the way you typically engage with action heroes. Yet, Bruce Wayne was still damaged goods and there was room to debate the ethics of his vigilantism. It never got in the way of making the film an enjoyable piece of entertainment though, whereas with Snyder's films- I would argue it doesn't even get there. It just sulks in the brutality and misery of it all.

I also think a lot of what he's saying about how Bruce doesn't live up to his father's legacy is directly addressed by the fact that Bruce in the end passes the mantle to one of the 'common folk'. I also call bull on the movie not addressing and challenging his decision to become Batman in the first place...first of all, TDK did that with the whole escalation angle. Second of all this movie's villains are literally enacting a revenge plot on him due to actions he made when he first became Batman- including the choice to kill Ra's. Maybe it isn't handled in as explicit a manner as he would've liked, but that element is still present. Bruce's choices shaped the form his enemies took in both sequels.

Rises definitely makes itself an easy target because of some of the storytelling leaps it makes, but I can hold my head up high sticking up for the film because I can at least see that those leaps are in service of finishing a character arc and wrapping up a trilogy and NOT in trying to set up endless sequels. In other words, it's earned.

 

[shauner111]

I'll take a more simple approach and less nice...TDKR s**ts all over anything Snyder has done. It's not put on a pedestal above BvS because it's Nolan. It's simply a good film and BvS is a bad one. A few nitpicky things but nothing serious compared to BvS or Justice League or even Man of Steel. As soon as I read something like "how did Batman get back to Gotham?" I say "you're an idiot" and I exit that site.

Snyder doesn't know how to make a competent film. Nolan hasn't made a bad one yet.

Come at me bro.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I'll take a more simple approach and less nice...TDKR s**ts all over anything Snyder has done. It's not put on a pedestal above BvS because it's Nolan. It's simply a good film and BvS is a bad one. A few nitpicky things but nothing serious compared to BvS or Justice League or even Man of Steel. As soon as I read something like "how did Batman get back to Gotham?" I say "you're an idiot" and I exit that site.

Snyder doesn't know how to make a competent film. Nolan hasn't made a bad one yet.

Come at me bro.

This article is far deeper than just 'a few nitpicky things". It deals with very serious issues the film has. Maybe you should read on. Instead of slagging off a piece you didn't read.

I'll make it easier for you. Start from reading 3a. Everything before that are nitpicks. Things pick up from there.

 

[BatLobster]

I'd welcome a debate along the lines of the more serious shots he fires at the film. I think it's a worthwhile discussion having, but personally, I think his political arguments are fairly easy to dismantle as him projecting a bit too much on a film that is raising certain sociopolitical/philosophical issues as a means of giving the narrative more weight and relevance for the audience and because they also naturally arise from the subject matter. I've had this same issue with anyone who tries to use politics as irrefutable evidence of the movie's problems.

If he wants to interpret the film as strictly Randian- that's his prerogative, but I certainly think there are more nuanced ways to read it.

 

[shauner111]

3A) Quality over quantity. It's not the comics. It' not trying to obey every comic book rule. Bruce did more for the city and did more physically in one year (i still think he was Batman for a bit longer) than most Batmen did in live-action or comics. The intention was to show a real human being in our world, and the consequences. So to me, this part is a comic purists nitpick. Don't keep referencing Miller because Bale acted like Batman a lot more in his absence than Miller's Bats did in his absence.

3B) Already had this battle over the summer with our poster Joker. And i should dig it back up because i never got around to finishing my argument. I don't mind this criticism. Fair enough, but i don't agree with it. Nolan answered this when he said we needed Batman and Gordon's lie to mean something. For the lie to have weight and for it to work, Gotham needs to be free of Batman. Also my argument is that we did see them hunt Batman but of course most don't agree with me on that. I still stand by it.

3c) Politics. I don't see anything wrong here. Great stuff. Makes it even more interesting. My politics and views do not need to be met 100 percent in the film that i'm watching. That's ridiculous. I see no problems here.

3d) I was completely satisfied with the end of the trilogy, it moved me. I don't care what others feel while i'm watching the ending. It's perhaps my favorite ending to any comic book movie, it tied everything up in a bow, and it's perfect. No problems here. He also writes this "Rises takes this up by showing Bruce still mourning for Rachel, which seems to be one of his reasons for having retired." and THAT is why i stopped reading in the first place. If you're going to write an analysis, try to actually pay attention to the films. Nonsense.

So where are all the Snyder level problems? I don't see any.

 

[Awest66]

The article itself is too opinionated and nitpicks stuff too much. But major problems are spot on.

Not really.

The article is basically this guy complaining about how it didn't give him exactly what he wanted from a sequel to The Dark Knight rather than any actual problems.

 

[Brother Jack]

As far as his political argument-- I can understand why he and others end up reading the film that way, but I still think it's a misreading that unfairly tasks the movie with resolving really tough social issues going back to the dawn of time that are simply not resolvable in any single film, never mind a $250 million 4 quadrant superhero film that is putting an ending on the story of a beloved cultural icon. Or at the very least, I think he has a deeply flawed understanding of what the political "aims" of the trilogy were.

Anyone who attaches any specific political ideology to it is missing the point. Like you said, the societal issues you see in Rises (and Knight) are universal. Social unrest due to economic unbalance does not belong to the 21st century United States. That the Occupy Wallstreet movement happened at the same time as its release was coincidental, though there was a certain unfortunate prescience with its ideas of demagoguery and civil fracturing. But at the end of the day Nolan isn't making any definitive statements. He's not using these films to communicate his own political conclusions. He's just incorporating ideas (which are more literary pulls than based on current events) as they relate to the story, the themes, and the setting.

 

[The Batman]

Not really.

The article is basically this guy complaining about how it didn't give him exactly what he wanted from a sequel to The Dark Knight rather than any actual problems.

Yup.

I can't take a lot of TDKR criticism seriously anymore because of this exact thing. Not only that, because the film has problems, people want to put this movie on a similar level as a Snyder film. It wasn't as tight as BB/TDK, so it must be complete trash.

I've been watching Collider's Top 50 CBMs rankings, and some of their crew tear into TDKR like it was BvS. It's cringeworthy.

As far as political readings, I'm tired of people automatically declaring Batman a conservative because he happens to be rich and white. It's lazy analysis. Most if not all heroes are fundamentally taking the law into their own hands and are self made, like the blatantly Liberal and often wealthy Oliver Queen.

 

[BatLobster]

I may be wrong, but I suspect Tacit was drawing comparison to Snyder because his films are always being accused of being uber-right wing and problematic in the extreme ideas that his films push.

The thing is, for me, those things are more of a byproduct of bad filmmaking/storytelling moreso than the REASON the movies are bad. I don't agree with Clint Eastwood's politics, but he's still made plenty of movies that I enjoy.

The fascistic stuff is always going to be bubbling under the surface when you're making a superhero movie, particularly one that's more grounded in the real world. But I still think it's a reductive way of reading the movie that has to willfully ignore other parts of the narrative to arrive at that conclusion.

Yup.

I can't take a lot of TDKR criticism seriously anymore because of this exact thing. Not only that, because the film has problems, people want to put this movie on a similar level as a Snyder film. It wasn't as tight as BB/TDK, so it must be complete trash.

I've been watching Collider's Top 50 CBMs rankings, and some of their crew tear into TDKR like it was BvS. It's cringeworthy.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll be sure to avoid that now haha.

Anyone who attaches any specific political ideology to it is missing the point. Like you said, the societal issues you see in Rises (and Knight) are universal. Social unrest due to economic unbalance does not belong to the 21st century United States. That the Occupy Wallstreet movement happened at the same time as its release was coincidental, though there was a certain unfortunate prescience with its ideas of demagoguery and civil fracturing. But at the end of the day Nolan isn't making any definitive statements. He's not using these films to communicate his own political conclusions. He's just incorporating ideas (which are more literary pulls than based on current events) as they relate to the story, the themes, and the setting.

Yeah. And truthfully Rises feels more resonant to me now in the post-Trump era than it actually did at the time. The Occupy movement thing just happened to line up with current events at the time. The movie showed how an actual fascist dictator could bend that civil unrest to his own ends and turn it into something ugly. A lot of American political commentators totally missed that back then, but it's way more relevant to 2016 than it was to 2012. And ultimately it's just a nice little bonus for the movie to have that resonance. It still functions as an emotionally engaging and exciting film even if that stuff goes over the viewer's head.