The Dark Knight Rises Your opinon on TDKR thus far

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Overall optimistic, but also slightly apprehensive, and that's regarding the involvement of the the Ra's flashback and what implications it has on the story. I have no interest in re-visiting Ra's or the LOS in any major way.

This is where I'm at.

Loved the Bane photo BTW.

 

[hatebox]

Actually a revisit from the LoS doesn't bother me. I always thought it'd be odd if there were no repercussions from the events of Begins.

That said, I want Bane and Catwoman to be the undeniable focus as far as villains are concerned.

And Hathaway as Selina remains my number one concern.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

We are on completely different pages because I'm not worried about Hathaway at all. I am however worried that Bale won't have any chemistry with her, like with all of his female leads.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

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?

Through the overall character arc of Bruce Wayne, which has always been the point. He may not have had as much screen time in two, but the dichotomy between him and Harvey Dent was still the main show. Batman in any form has a multitude of villains; the plot anchors itself on the growth of it's primary character. So I disagree with this being an "odd trilogy".

 

[Brother Jack]

I wouldn't have a problem with the LOS being in the film if it's just in the flashback with young Ra's. But I also don't care to see them in the present (at least with Talia involved); I always figured they were disbanded after Begins.

 

[truth]

And the guy that alluded to Inception having good action? Anybody that says they could make out what was happening in that Snow section is a liar.

I am pessimistic with Nolan filming an epic fight between Bane and Batman

 

[Gianakin_]

And the guy that alluded to Inception having good action? Anybody that says they could make out what was happening in that Snow section is a liar.

If you didn't like it, fine. But don't assume what I or others are. I could make out everything just fine.

 

[BestGirl]

My thoughts:

- I've gotten used to the title, but it really should've been Batman Rises.

- I'm excited about Catwoman but not so much Hathaway. I'm worried that she's going to be all teeth when she puts on the mask.

- Bane doesn't interest me as a villain, but that's mostly because I know little about him.

- I'm a little unnerved by the rumors that Batman might die at the end of this movie. I really don't want that to happen.

My optimism for this flick is founded on the fact that the Nolans are involved.

 

[truth]

errrrr....Batman dying? What the bad place? If that happens, then that makes no sense. The guy has hardly earned his stripes yet and he just dies? Maybe if he does something really brave for Gotham.


The title is bad. I've tried saying it many times over and over again, but no, it sucks. Batman Rises or Rise of Batman or The Batman are much better than Dark Knight....RISES.

 

[truth]

To add, the title is a money-grab by WB so those that don't know about Batman will recognise the title, link it to the Euphoria of 2008 and get in the theatre

 

[Gianakin_]

To add, the title is a money-grab by WB so those that don't know about Batman will recognise the title, link it to the Euphoria of 2008 and get in the theatre

That makes no sense. If it was for people that don't know about Batman, wouldn't they just include "Batman" in the title?

 

[KRIM]

I'm really not understanding the complete dismissal of the title.

It sufficiently hits the marketing (continues TDK moniker), thematic ("the night is darkest just before the dawn") and metaphoric (Batman overcoming) targets that any good title would do. Far more effective than the trite fan-favorite of "Batman Rises".

 

[Gianakin_]

I wouldn't have minded Batman Rises. But Rise of Batman, Knightrise and crap like that? bad place no.

 

[BestGirl]

I'm really not understanding the complete dismissal of the title.

It sufficiently hits the marketing (continues TDK moniker), thematic ("the night is darkest just before the dawn") and metaphoric (Batman overcoming) targets that any good title would do. Far more effective than the trite fan-favorite of "Batman Rises".

Batman Rises would convey the same metaphorical meaning. From a marketing standpoint, I doubt having the Dark Knight in the title would make much difference. Everyone who saw TDK knew it was about Batman.

What I really disliked about TDKR at first was its clunkiness. Batman Rises flows better.

 

[CJ]

I think the word "Rises" has nothing to do with Batman's redemption, but some sort of plot element we don't know about. When the first image of Bane was revealed, there was a Twitter that said "The Fire Rises" obviously having something to do with Bane.

The Dark Knight Rises seems a little too "cheerful" a title for a Christopher Nolan film. Most of his movies have depressing endings. (Insomnia, Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight)

 

[truth]

Batman Rises would convey the same metaphorical meaning. From a marketing standpoint, I doubt having the Dark Knight in the title would make much difference. Everyone who saw TDK knew it was about Batman.

What I really disliked about TDKR at first was its clunkiness. Batman Rises flows better.

There are some people who have only seen the Dark Knight and have never seen a film about Batman before. Trust me, I know these people.

 

[BestGirl]

There are some people who have only seen the Dark Knight and have never seen a film about Batman before. Trust me, I know these people.

But after watching TDK they surely knew who Batman was.

 

[KRIM]

Batman Rises would convey the same metaphorical meaning.

How so? It's read literally and only literally. There's no subtlety about it. Batman -- does this....and for the sequel, he...does that. C'mon. There's only so many ways you can regurgitate that nonsense.

TDKR, as a title, (presumably) holds some poignancy to the film. In the same way that TDK could have easily been just some easy way to indirectly reference the titular character using a famous moniker. Thankfully, it wasn't. It was nicely integrated with the themes and dialog. I've no doubt that will be the case here.

From a marketing standpoint, I doubt having the Dark Knight in the title would make much difference. Everyone who saw TDK knew it was about Batman.

Goes both ways. By your own claim, having Batman in the title would be superfluous.

What I really disliked about TDKR at first was its clunkiness. Batman Rises flows better.

To each his own. It reeks of the old-Hollywood style "(protagonist) (adjective/verb)" movie titling that I'm absolutely sick of. Bond and Potter have been doing it right for years.

 

[Grayson]

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

What would be the point of that?
People aren't stupid.
They can tell when a new Batman movie is out...
I think it's more likely that Nolan and co. came up with a lame title.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Catwoman isnt really a villain. This movie really only has one villain. Even if we count Catwoman, had Marion or JGL played a villain this would have had the exact amount of main characters as TDK. How many of those characters are villains shouldnt matter. Just like it shouldnt matter how many good guys the movie has. Neither should it matter that the movie is based on a comicbook. Other movies have had 3 villains so why cant a comicbook movie?

The reason why there might not be any great comicbook movies with
3 villains is not because it wouldnt work. Its simply because almost all of them have one or two. People seem to think that 3 villains doesnt work because Spiderman 3 had 3 villains and failed. Even if thats not the reason why it failed.

Once again, I think you need to remember that I didn't say three villains, I said three MAIN villains.

TDK had more then three villains. Batman Begins had more then three villains. They both worked fine. They didn't have more then three MAIN villains. I'm not saying I don't think a movie with three main villains couldn't work, but I think it would be very hard. Namely, because main villains usually require a good amount of set-up or backstory. The Joker is one of the few villains who doesn't need set up or backstory to really work. However, he still needs a good portion of screen time devoted to him.

Bottom line, to do main villains well, you need time. They need to be developed. And very often the main villains don't really mesh well with one another. After all, they became popular villains because they can provide interesting stories by themselves.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

My excitement for TDKR is through the roof. I have more anticipation for this movie than anything else next year, and other than HP7.2, anything this year even.

It has a huge cast, but nolan know's what he is doing. I have faith.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

Im pretty darn excited...I would be worried about the film possibly being crowded...but I think that Nolan knows how to even it all out...
I'm kind of worried about getting a good seat at midnight.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I think the word "Rises" has nothing to do with Batman's redemption, but some sort of plot element we don't know about. When the first image of Bane was revealed, there was a Twitter that said "The Fire Rises" obviously having something to do with Bane.

The Dark Knight Rises seems a little too "cheerful" a title for a Christopher Nolan film. Most of his movies have depressing endings. (Insomnia, Memento, The Prestige, The Dark Knight)

You conveniently left out the fact that Batman Begins has an upbeat, heroic ending, and that... get this... it also happens to be one of his Batman movies. TDK was the Empire Strikes Back of this series. Nolan said that things getting worse before they get better is one of the themes of TDK. Harvey Dent even said in TDK, in an almost prophetic statement, that the night is darkest just before the dawn, and that the dawn was coming. Even Alfred said something to that effect. But TDK is almost completely doom and gloom... aside from the Joker getting captured, there's not much of any situation getting better in the film. "Rises" is a word that we associate with the sun bringing dawn to us, meaning that Batman is finally going to be rewarded for his hard work in this final film.

Batman's not going to die, as you seem to be implying. That kind of a move for pure shock factor is more for a hack like M. Night Shyamalan.

 

[kvz5]

You conveniently left out the fact that Batman Begins has an upbeat, heroic ending, and that... get this... it also happens to be one of his Batman movies. TDK was the Empire Strikes Back of this series. Nolan said that things getting worse before they get better is one of the themes of TDK. Harvey Dent even said in TDK, in an almost prophetic statement, that the night is darkest just before the dawn, and that the dawn was coming. Even Alfred said something to that effect. But TDK is almost completely doom and gloom... aside from the Joker getting captured, there's not much of any situation getting better in the film. "Rises" is a word that we associate with the sun bringing dawn to us, meaning that Batman is finally going to be rewarded for his hard work in this final film.

Batman's not going to die, as you seem to be implying. That kind of a move for pure shock factor is more for a hack like M. Night Shyamalan.

I have a feeling that they will play around with the word "Rises" in a lot of the marketing not only for Batman but with the other characters ("The Fire Rises" for Bane, "___ Rises" for Catwoman and so on) but in the end "RISES" will be all about Batman - the hero, the lead and the core of the trilogy. They won't call a movie The Dark Knight Rises if it's only about a plot point for the villain.

 

[BestGirl]

How so? It's read literally and only literally. There's no subtlety about it. Batman -- does this....and for the sequel, he...does that. C'mon. There's only so many ways you can regurgitate that nonsense.

No, the literal meaning of "rises" is to get up. Metaphorically, it means to triumph. Changing Batman to The Dark Knight doesn't change that, unless you're thinking of some other metaphorical meaning.

TDKR, as a title, (presumably) holds some poignancy to the film. In the same way that TDK could have easily been just some easy way to indirectly reference the titular character using a famous moniker. Thankfully, it wasn't. It was nicely integrated with the themes and dialog. I've no doubt that will be the case here.

Yeah, I figured as much, which is why I haven't been too noisy with my complaints about the title. I'm sure it'll be worked into the dialog in some clever way.

Goes both ways. By your own claim, having Batman in the title would be superfluous.

No, because then the title would just be Rises. You need either Batman or The Dark Knight to inform people of who's going to rise. Batman works just as well in that capacity as The Dark Knight.