The Dark Knight Rises Your opinon on TDKR thus far

[DieSmiling]

I have the same feelings about the title.
I think Batman Rises would have been more appropriated, if the "Rises" was really necessary.. I get the feeling that WB wanted to capitalize more on "The Dark Knight" name and convinced Nolan.

I agree with this. I think WB wanted "TDK" in the title.

Obviously it's hard to have an opinion on a film when we haven't seen one shot of film or line of dialogue, but I'm definitely optimistic, primarily out of faith in Nolan. He's never led me astray before.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, if it was Nolan's idea.. it was a bad one. People assume it was WBs decision because it smacks of marketing much more than creativity.

Well, you did defend a plot twist from BB that would happen again in TDKR by saying it is a good way to bind the trilogy together, dismissing it as a lazy idea. Why is it so hard to accept that the title is something that just makes the perfect sense with regard to the story, as well?

To not like it is one thing, to support theories about Nolan losing creative control over a title is a bit too much.

 

[Jick]

I don't think he lost any creative control, just that he agreed with WB that it would be a more commercial title.

Exactly. Hell, when it comes down to it, TDK is going the be the only film in this trilogy that has an awesome name. Batman Begins was a pretty sucky movie title also, but people seem to give that one a pass simply because it was such a good film.

Personally, I always liked the Batman Begins title. From day one to this day.

 

[Gianakin_]

Me too. Actually, I like all the Bat-movies' titles.

 

[Bat-Mite]

We could go around and around with this title thing. You can say WB made him put TDK in the title of this film, but then you have to explain why they let him call the 2008 film TDK in the first place. Before 2007, only comic book geeks knew the significance of The Dark Knight. Another film with Batman in the title would have been the more logical choice from a marketing perspective, because you don't have to explain that one or show trailers and posters to let people know it's a Batman movie. The Dark Knight, before 2007, was NOT a title like "The Man of Steel" for Superman that even non-comic book fans associated with the character.

 

[truth]

I'm one of the few that is pessimistic.

A big problem with Bane as a character. Nolan knows how to do a story and structure it well, but he really can't film action. On TWO occassions, the action has been blatantly bad. You need to see what the heck is happening. With Bane, he's going to have to fight Batman, so that is where the pessimism is.

Also, this trilogy is odd. This third part hardly bares any resemblance to the second one. In every trilogy, the hero and villian are constant...there have to be constants. If you had Talia, or you had members of the League of Shadows in this or, Two Face was still kept alive, then you could see how it's a thread. With none of those characters in this, please explain to me how this film can connect with the first two films?

 

[Gianakin_]

With all the rest of the recurring characters?

 

[truth]

Not ALL of them...but where is the link to the previous films?

In Spiderman, Osborn is throughout the series and he is that thread that links all the three films together as a character on the OTHER side of the coin.

That's the problem I had with the two films. They don't seem to connect with one another, something about them seem too set apart. It may be the fact that you don't have a villainous character that has been there throughout. Even having Falcone present in both films would be good enough

 

[Gianakin_]

Different tone, different color palette, different film structure and the recasting of Rachel may be some of the reasons you found them disconnected.

But why do you need the villains specifically to connect the two films? Aren't the good guys enough for you?

 

[The Joker]

I guess the Toy Story trilogy is a failure because they didn't have Sid, or Stinky Pete, or Lotso in all three movies.

 

[truth]

Please don't hate me, I haven't watched Toy Story 2 or 3

 

[Gianakin_]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? (Haven't watched TS3 myself)

 

[truth]

Different tone, different color palette, different film structure and the recasting of Rachel may be some of the reasons you found them disconnected.

But why do you need the villains specifically to connect the two films? Aren't the good guys enough for you?

You still need something more in the world to show a connection.

Batman's fight against crime is pretty much a long standing one...crime does not disappear over night or in a few months. So why is Falcone not somehow present in part 2? We should surely see him in some form and how he has changed because of Batman since part 1.

 

[BigEggo]

Not ALL of them...but where is the link to the previous films?

In Spiderman, Osborn is throughout the series and he is that thread that links all the three films together as a character on the OTHER side of the coin.

the less similarities there are with the spiderman trilogy,the better. that trilogy was a mess.

 

[truth]

the less similarities there are with the spiderman trilogy,the better. that trilogy was a mess.

Those films SUCKED. Trust me, this comes from a big Spidey fan.

Thing is though, as bad as those films were, the trilogy still held together and all films were relatable because of the recurring characters from both sides of morality.

 

[The Joker]

Please don't hate me, I haven't watched Toy Story 2 or 3

When you do then you'll see a consistent villain is not needed to make the trilogy feel connected. Just the core cast of characters who drive the story. Not the villains.

You still need something more in the world to show a connection.

Why?

Batman's fight against crime is pretty much a long standing one...crime does not disappear over night or in a few months. So why is Falcone not somehow present in part 2? We should surely see him in some form and how he has changed because of Batman since part 1.

He was in Arkham. Why was it necessary to see him? What plot point would it have served? He was just a plot device in Begins.

 

[Gianakin_]

You still need something more in the world to show a connection.

Batman's fight against crime is pretty much a long standing one...crime does not disappear over night or in a few months. So why is Falcone not somehow present in part 2? We should surely see him in some form and how he has changed because of Batman since part 1.

You mean, you need something more. TDK is clearly a sequel with the same characters and even references (subtle or not) to BB.

And Falcone went mad. His family was in disarray, that's why Maroni took charge.

Plus, now that I remember, your argument is moot anyway since Scarecrow appeared in TDK.

 

[truth]

When you do then you'll see a consistent villain is not needed to make the trilogy feel connected. Just the core cast of characters who drive the story. Not the villains.



Why?



He was in Arkham. Why was it necessary to see him? What plot point would it have served? He was just a plot device in Begins.

I have a BIG problem with a character like that being a mere plot device.

 

[truth]

You mean, you need something more. TDK is clearly a sequel with the same characters and even references (subtle or not) to BB.

And Falcone went mad. His family was in disarray, that's why Maroni took charge.

Plus, now that I remember, your argument is moot anyway since Scarecrow appeared in TDK.

For two seconds. I forget he's in it.

 

[Gianakin_]

[/B]

For two seconds. I forget he's in it.

That's your problem, though, not Nolan's. You used the "villain being present in more than one film" argument (with which I disagree anyway), and Nolan complied even to that.

Plus, since you bring up Norman Osborn, the Scarecrow in TDK had the same (if not more) screentime than Norman's in SM2

 

[The Joker]

I have a BIG problem with a character like that being a mere plot device.

Really? So what major purpose did he serve in the comic books beyond being a source of corruption they wanted to take down?

Don't tell me you wanted to see the Holiday Killer.

Plus, since you bring up Norman Osborn, the Scarecrow in TDK had the same (if not more) screentime than Norman's in SM2

Right you are. Same in SM-3.

 

[Banana-Hotdog]

Everything official would leave me feeling optimistic but I think reading these boards lowers it down to neutral. Seems like every time we get some news that excites me, be it casting or the image of Bane, it always comes back to speculation about how said news relates to the League of Shadows and then I have to suffer through page upon page of the same old arguments again and again... Read the boards long enough and you'll start to think that 90% of the movie is young Ra's & baby Bane & Talia flashbacks, 5% the Miranda Tate is Talia twist, 2.5% Batman getting his back broken by Bane, 2.5% Batman all healed beating Bane, and lastly Catwoman shows up after the credits.

I both love and hate this place sometimes...

 

[MaceB]

Well, you did defend a plot twist from BB that would happen again in TDKR by saying it is a good way to bind the trilogy together, dismissing it as a lazy idea. Why is it so hard to accept that the title is something that just makes the perfect sense with regard to the story, as well?

To not like it is one thing, to support theories about Nolan losing creative control over a title is a bit too much.

I'm not arguing that the titles shouldn't connect to one another. I just feel like there were better titles that could have done that. My example is KnightRise. Same connection made, less obvious, more original, less wordy.
The only way I like the title is how someone brought it up here a few months back actually, which was that it represents a progression:
Batman Begins - he was just batman, and he was beginning.
The Dark Knight - Batman earns the title of knight.
The Dark Knight Rises - he rises to the aspirations that he set forth in Begins. He's now the symbol he sought to become.

And in terms of Nolan losing creative control... it's just assumed that that is the case at least to some degree. WB is putting up the money. They are Nolan's boss. They can override his creative control any time they wish.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm not arguing that the titles shouldn't connect to one another. I just feel like there were better titles that could have done that. My example is KnightRise. Same connection made, less obvious, more original, less wordy.

See, Knightrise sounds awful to me. That's you just disliking the title which, again, is fine. Doesn't mean that because in your ears TDKR sounds appalling and uninspired and lazy, it wasn't Nolan's idea, but WB's.

And in terms of Nolan losing creative control... it's just assumed that that is the case at least to some degree. WB is putting up the money. They are Nolan's boss. They can override his creative control any time they wish.

Sure, but over a title, of all things? They were more lenient to much bolder things in TDK (and TDK was a bigger risk for WB, than TDKR is now), but they'll butt in for the title of its sequel? I find it hard to believe.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I'm one of the few that is pessimistic.

A big problem with Bane as a character. Nolan knows how to do a story and structure it well, but he really can't film action.

Inception would like to have a word with you.

Also, this trilogy is odd. This third part hardly bares any resemblance to the second one. In every trilogy, the hero and villian are constant...there have to be constants. If you had Talia, or you had members of the League of Shadows in this or, Two Face was still kept alive, then you could see how it's a thread. With none of those characters in this, please explain to me how this film can connect with the first two films?

What about Indiana Jones? I guess you could try to make a case about nazis, but they weren't in the second film. They weren't even mentioned in that one. There's also The Man With No Name trilogy (the bad guy is killed in each film, so there can't really be a constant there) and the Godfather trilogy. Really, one of the reasons why so many trilogies suck in the first place is because directors try to follow this horrid formula that you're recommending instead of just telling the story they want to tell.