On July 20 2011 15:40 MaestroSC wrote: Am i the only one terrified by the fact that Anne Hathaway is going to be catwoman?
Seriously, how do they cast these roles?
Maybe its just me... but imo her last...career of movies has all been pretty bad acting/movies.
Considering this was my reaction when they casted Heath Ledger... I think I trust Nolan and company enough to know what they're doing.
They're clearly fans of the franchise and wouldn't fuck it up; she must have blown them away in auditions.
She's been in some bad movies, but in no way is she a bad actress. She has done well in both ensemble casts and lead (most notably Rachel Getting Married).
Just saw the trailer when I went to go watch Harry Potter. I was a little flustered when I saw the trailer titles, something like "every beginning has an ending." I did not realize the new Batman's were only going to be a trilogy >=(
On July 19 2011 17:35 pyro19 wrote: Batman > Marvel right now.. Everything related to Batman these days is so awesome be it the movies or the awesome Batman games.
In terms of quality, yes. The Dark Knight Rises is DC's saving grace from the failed Green Lantern to the scrapped Wonder Woman TV series. After the success of the Nolan Batman series, it will probably surpass the latest Harry Potter movie.
On July 19 2011 17:42 ven wrote:
On July 19 2011 16:04 Velr wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:22 zoLo wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:19 Saicam wrote: omg!!!! this movie will be the biggest movie of summer 2012
I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers.
I highly doubt that.
The only other Superheroes thats are as famous as Batman (in Europe) is/are probably Superman and Spider Man AND Batman had 2 excellent prequels while The Avengers "prequels" varied between total trash (Fanta 4/Thor), "decent" (i liked the "new" Hulk) and not even revealed/not made for a eurpean/world marked in the first place (Captain America)..
The Avengers? No one except "true" comic fans gives a rats ass about Hulk/Fanta 4/Thor and lolcaptainamericalol...
Batman? EVERYONE knows Batman.
The Dark Knight would probably win on hype alone even if it managed to be worse than Batman & Robin in the end. But it might actually be closer than you think. Iron Man was very successful, Captain America has a lot of potential to be as well and don't forget that most of Whedon's fan base will watch it no matter what.
I understand what that guy said and he's right to an extent, BUT with all the hype surrounding the past Marvel movies and leading up to The Avengers, it might be head to head with The Dark Knight Rises in the first week sales. Overall, I think The Dark Knight Rises will make more money in the end. I am just happy that we're getting both movies in the same year.
You just can't beat the universal knowledge of Batman to something like The avengers.
Batman has entered into the view of the masses. Everyone knows batman, just like superman. It's just a name that has gone beyond just comic books.
No ammount of marketing is ever going to make the avengers into a bigger name then batman, that kind of a reputation only happens over a many many years. Batman also has the upper hand in that the movies are known to be exceptional and people who are just looking for a good movie will seek it out aswell.
Batman is for everyone, the avengers is just for the fans and people that generally like super hero movies.
A big name and a director like Nolan. Even a big name like superman would have trouble beating that. A nothing name like the avengers just doesn't cut it.
Of course batman will make more money, but how is avengers a nothing name? Thor, Iron Man and Hulk have all been successful in cinema and captain America comes out soon and will no doubt do well at the box office. Plus it's made by Whedon so will be amazing.
On July 19 2011 17:35 pyro19 wrote: Batman > Marvel right now.. Everything related to Batman these days is so awesome be it the movies or the awesome Batman games.
In terms of quality, yes. The Dark Knight Rises is DC's saving grace from the failed Green Lantern to the scrapped Wonder Woman TV series. After the success of the Nolan Batman series, it will probably surpass the latest Harry Potter movie.
On July 19 2011 17:42 ven wrote:
On July 19 2011 16:04 Velr wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:22 zoLo wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:19 Saicam wrote: omg!!!! this movie will be the biggest movie of summer 2012
I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers.
I highly doubt that.
The only other Superheroes thats are as famous as Batman (in Europe) is/are probably Superman and Spider Man AND Batman had 2 excellent prequels while The Avengers "prequels" varied between total trash (Fanta 4/Thor), "decent" (i liked the "new" Hulk) and not even revealed/not made for a eurpean/world marked in the first place (Captain America)..
The Avengers? No one except "true" comic fans gives a rats ass about Hulk/Fanta 4/Thor and lolcaptainamericalol...
Batman? EVERYONE knows Batman.
The Dark Knight would probably win on hype alone even if it managed to be worse than Batman & Robin in the end. But it might actually be closer than you think. Iron Man was very successful, Captain America has a lot of potential to be as well and don't forget that most of Whedon's fan base will watch it no matter what.
I understand what that guy said and he's right to an extent, BUT with all the hype surrounding the past Marvel movies and leading up to The Avengers, it might be head to head with The Dark Knight Rises in the first week sales. Overall, I think The Dark Knight Rises will make more money in the end. I am just happy that we're getting both movies in the same year.
You just can't beat the universal knowledge of Batman to something like The avengers.
Batman has entered into the view of the masses. Everyone knows batman, just like superman. It's just a name that has gone beyond just comic books.
No ammount of marketing is ever going to make the avengers into a bigger name then batman, that kind of a reputation only happens over a many many years. Batman also has the upper hand in that the movies are known to be exceptional and people who are just looking for a good movie will seek it out aswell.
Batman is for everyone, the avengers is just for the fans and people that generally like super hero movies.
A big name and a director like Nolan. Even a big name like superman would have trouble beating that. A nothing name like the avengers just doesn't cut it.
Of course batman will make more money, but how is avengers a nothing name? Thor, Iron Man and Hulk have all been successful in cinema and captain America comes out soon and will no doubt do well at the box office. Plus it's made by Whedon so will be amazing.
but Captain America is gonna flop super hard soooo...
On July 19 2011 08:25 Ganfei2 wrote: What the fuck is a shallow philosophy? One that doesn't address every aspect of every thing inside whatever boundaries you've assigned?
What the fuck are you even talking about? What's deep to you? Emotionally touching? Addressing a human concern? Confronting a real-life problem?
The fact that you're angry that I called TDK "shallow, but as good as deeper movies" shows that you don't really understand it.
By shallow philosophy I mean pop philosophy like utilitarian dilemmas (TDK, Spiderman 1 and 2), anti-corporatism/anarchism (Fight Club) or Plato's allegory of the cave (The Matrix). The use of philosophy that's familiar to an audience helps a movie sell compared to use of deeper themes and doesn't necessarily make it less good, although it will be less likely to win an Oscar.
Semantics, what's "deep." Just because they're philosophical ideas that have become mainstream doesn't mean they lack depth. It's possible that they've become mainstream because they're shallow and easy to understand, but you didn't make that claim; you merely went hipster.
That is why he is mad.
But in your perspective, everything's deep, because every action movie has some basic philosophical ideas. Does Voldemort saying, "There is no good or evil only power" make Harry Potter deep?
Anyway, the only pseudo-intellectuals here are the ones who need to defend the "depth" of a movie to the death before they can enjoy it.
Wasn't keeping up with the thread, so just pointing out some sick strawmanning going on in this little debate.
On July 20 2011 06:19 DannyJ wrote: Hopefully this movie isnt a bloated mess like the second movie. That was like one of the best movies ever bogged down by an hour + of unnecessary and pretentious bullshit.
i have seen many people label The Dark Knight as "pretentious". Luckily youre the first one who isnt being pretentious about it
Can you explain to me how it was pretentious? No one else gave me a civilized answer
Although the question wasn't directed at me, I'd like to give it a try:
First of all, TDK was overall a good movie in my book, and easily one of the best in the superhero genre. It's constellation in general, and especially the cast, was decent to excellent. The movie is lacking only in regard to plot, characterization, and dialogue, or to put it more broadly, dramaturgy.
For example, the whole purpose of the omniscience machine (apart from being some kind of completely unnecessary Deus ex machina to solve a problem that should have been solvable by "the world's greatest detective" via regular investigation) seems to be Lucius Fox's monologue on responsibility and power... after which he proceeds to use the omniscience machine against his better judgement.
The character development - for the lack of a more pejorative term - of Harvey Dent makes no sense. His decision to pretend to be Batman is a big surprise to everybody, but only because he did not bother to tell them about it, for which there was absolutely no reason (apart from not telling the audience in order to create suspense). Likewise, the only reason fo his heel turn from "white knight" to villain seems to be that he must become Two-Face.
The Joker's plans border on the theoretically impossible, and are, without a doubt, practically impossible to pull off using the resources at his disposal. When he eventually reveals his overarching goal, to corrupt Harvey Dent, everybody fails to see that Dent could easily have died. So "do nothing" would have been a perfect countermeasure to combat the Joker.
In the end, Batman decides to take the blame for Dent's murders... again, only for the sake of doing justice to the movie's title. It would have been completely fine to just label the murders as unsolved, or to blame the Joker, or whatever.
Noteably, most of these deficits are in fact minor (at least in my eyes), and had the movie been advertised as "just another superhero flick", it wouldn't have mattered at all. But within the scope of that marketing hype after Ledger's death, TDK was presented as a deep, intelligent movie... but then it has to be measured by the standards of such a movie, and it cannot afford such obvious plot holes, heel turns, etc.
Ok that definitely makes sense, thanks. Basically what you and others are saying is that the movie took itself too seriously and put itself above other superhero films when it really wasnt, am I right?
Though your logic makes sense to me as to the overall reason why you found TDK to be pretentious, I do disagree with a lot of what you labeled as plot holes in the spoiler of your post.
First of all, the omniscience machine wasnt a deus ex machina. They were given very, very little time to find the Joker. The only way to be sure to stop 2 boat loads of people blowing up within the time limit would be to use the machine. Maybe someone could have figured it out, but in that situation would you have taken that chance with hundreds of people's lives on the line? That was the utilitarian dilemma the movie makers wanted the audience to think about
Harvey Dent telling people that he was going to pretend to be Batman would have completely ruined everything. He wanted to give the people of Gotham one last chance to demonstrate courage in the face of terror. The people were cowardly, willing to condemn a hero they took for granted because they were scared for their own safety. Dent gave them one last chance at the press conference, but in the end they still wanted Batman's head on a platter. Therefore, he had to spring it on them at the last second. He didnt tell the people he cared about because they would have ruined his cover.
As for the fall of Harvey Dent, he was a proactive guy and firmly believed that one could "make his own luck." Unfortunately for him, he was eventually put into a situation where nothing he would do could help save Rachel. He learned that there are times that you just get screwed by your circumstances and his circumstances included being betrayed by officers he wanted to investigate in the first place. This hard lesson he learned by losing his wife-to-be combined with Gordon's negligence about those officers was enough to turn him from an optimistic go-getter into a pessimistic man looking for revenge.
We dont know what the Joker's resources are, but as the movie progress he gained a lot. The beginning heist didnt require too many resources. Apart from some equipment, he just had to "promise" a bunch of patsies a load of money and take em out one by one. He got away with completely cleaning out a mob bank, which would no doubt give him a shit load of cash. As he gained more and more followers as well, it becomes more believable that he could pull off the things he plans. Gotham is a corrupt city, he could probably very far purely with money at his disposal.
I dont understand the second part of that paragraph about "doing nothing", but Ill do my best. Batman was the only person to learn about Joker wanting to corrupt Dent, so there is no everybody. If he did nothing, Gordons entire family might have died. He might have run around in the city, revealing to everyone that he was responsible for murder. Those actions would undo the years of progress he created. Doing nothing would have ended in disaster.
Marking the murders as "unsolved" isnt a solution. They would only be marked as "unsolved" if they tried an investigation and couldnt solve it. An investigation would have revealed that the murders Dent committed took place while the Joker was pulling the whole Boat Explosion trick, meaning it would be far less likely that the Joker was behind them. Sure, he coulda sent some henchmen, but an investigation would have probably tied connections between the victims and Dent. They could do a coverup or shift the blame, but that would be shaky. Instead, everyone hated Batman already so as shaky as the story would be for Batman committing Dent's murders, the public would have very readily accepted it.
Furthermore, Gordon called for the police to make a perimeter around the area where he and his family were being held by Dent. He didnt tell them what the situation was though. When the police were finally allowed in, they would find their beloved white knight Dent dead and Gordon's family shaken. That would immediately call attention to Dent. Batman had to take the blame for Dent's "murder" and thus he woulda been the prime candidate to take the blame for all the murders Dent committed as well
Yes, you're correct, that's basically it. And you're also making some good points in regard to the supposed plot holes:
I rewatched the scene, and when Dent pretends to be Batman it indeed might be a more or less spontaneous reaction to the crowd's chanting... so I was mistaken to call this a plot hole.
Also, your explanation for letting Batman take the blame for the murders makes sense. Likewise, Flaccid's (July 21 2011 07:30) interpretation is plausible. However, I still would have preferred if they had at least considered another option, since it's hard to believe that Batman being a wanted murderer from now on is actually desirable. But this isn't a real plot hole either.
The transformation from Dent to Two-Face dwindles at the point where madness equals malevolence. Of course it makes sense within the Batman universe, since all evildoers are basically just batshit crazy, but elsewhere traumatized people do not become murderers overnight. So, if you view TDK as a superhero flick, it's fine (and totally in line with the canon); however, that was my main point - it's a good superhero flick, but it's still a superhero flick.
There is probably no point in arguing about the probability of the Joker to pull all these stunts off... I'll simply forfeit on that topic and save us the trouble of an exegesis. For me, it was just a tad too much when he eventually stated that his driving goal from the start had been to corrupt Harvey Dent all along, which I find hard to believe because he would have easily killed Dent hadn't his attempt been stopped by Batman.
Nevertheless, I'm adamant in my opinion that the omniscience machine and the discussions about it are superfluous. The utilitarian dilemma is already omnipresent in the whole "Kill the Joker already"-topic, not to mention all the other moral lemmata the Joker puts his adversaries through, and even with this interpretation, the machine still also has the function of a deus ex machina.
So, thanks for your input. I think I'll leave it at that: Any more, and this will come off as a rant, and there are far more deserving victims for my wrath (I'm looking in the general direction of Michael Bay here). And even though I'll probably never become a Nolan fan, I'll hopefully still enjoy the new movie for its sheer entertainment value.
Just watched the trailer and I am super psyched about this. But can someone explain Bane's backstory to me? I just remember him as a big dopy doughy guy in Batman and Robin, and he looked much more...intelligent in the teaser.
Also, as to whether The Dark Knight was pretentious: it was a good movie. The best superhero movie ever made thus far. Every character had clear cut goals and hardly any moral posturing took place. It was action and reaction, plain and simple.
On July 22 2011 20:50 Lightwip wrote: Rachel was the only character ruined by The Dark Knight. She became a sex figure rather than an important character as in Batman Begins in that movie.
How the hell was she a sex figure? She was loved by two important main characters, and her death influenced Harvey Dent to turn evil. Though I must admit that prior to her death she wasn't playing that big of a role fighting crime like in Batman Begins.
On July 22 2011 20:50 Lightwip wrote: Rachel was the only character ruined by The Dark Knight. She became a sex figure rather than an important character as in Batman Begins in that movie.
How the hell was she a sex figure? She was loved by two important main characters, and her death influenced Harvey Dent to turn evil. Though I must admit that prior to her death she wasn't playing that big of a role fighting crime like in Batman Begins.
Quite simply, she herself didn't DO anything. Her presence mattered more than her actions.
it says "conclusion" in the trailer -.- well maybe if it sells well enough they might go on, but i think because the new batman tries to be realistic, they don't want poison ivy or freezer or the likes to make an appearance... such a shame!
What TDK let's stand out from (most) other super hero movies is really simple:
It's dark and (kinda) realistic. Most Superheromovies just don't get the right atmosphere...
Spiderman/Fantastic 4/X-Men... Even the new X-Men were all much or at least a little to colorfull or/and light hearted (there are a few exceptions).
You never really worry in these movies, it's like.. allways sunny... The hero will manage everything and it's crystal clear from the get go, sometimes someone dies, but it's never shown as clearly. The Joker just executes someone... Or Rachel dies even tho Batman is trying as hard as he can to save her. You did not know what the Joker could/would (be allowed to) do in this movie. This created suspense, you weren't 100% sure what would happen with the ships... That’s what, for me, made TDK outstanding (naturally everyone still expects a happy end, but you actually can doubt the "happy" outcome, if you want to).
I don't care about philosophical backgrounds... There are other movies for this. I want a good/engaging story in which I don't see the conclusion coming from 1000000 miles away, nothing more. TDK delivers this better than any other Superhero-Moie.
On July 22 2011 21:23 Naphal wrote: it says "conclusion" in the trailer -.- well maybe if it sells well enough they might go on, but i think because the new batman tries to be realistic, they don't want poison ivy or freezer or the likes to make an appearance... such a shame!
Well, they made Scarecrow believable... Poison Ivy could work.
In my personal opinion, looks like shit. I smell a Spiderman 3 type of scenario here.
I don't think so. It is best to wait for the next full length trailer and on the big screen to make a decision. Almost every movie "looks like shit" when they are filming until you edit the movie in the studio.
On July 19 2011 17:35 pyro19 wrote: Batman > Marvel right now.. Everything related to Batman these days is so awesome be it the movies or the awesome Batman games.
In terms of quality, yes. The Dark Knight Rises is DC's saving grace from the failed Green Lantern to the scrapped Wonder Woman TV series. After the success of the Nolan Batman series, it will probably surpass the latest Harry Potter movie.
On July 19 2011 17:42 ven wrote:
On July 19 2011 16:04 Velr wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:22 zoLo wrote:
On July 19 2011 07:19 Saicam wrote: omg!!!! this movie will be the biggest movie of summer 2012
I dunno, I think it might be a close race between The Avengers.
I highly doubt that.
The only other Superheroes thats are as famous as Batman (in Europe) is/are probably Superman and Spider Man AND Batman had 2 excellent prequels while The Avengers "prequels" varied between total trash (Fanta 4/Thor), "decent" (i liked the "new" Hulk) and not even revealed/not made for a eurpean/world marked in the first place (Captain America)..
The Avengers? No one except "true" comic fans gives a rats ass about Hulk/Fanta 4/Thor and lolcaptainamericalol...
Batman? EVERYONE knows Batman.
The Dark Knight would probably win on hype alone even if it managed to be worse than Batman & Robin in the end. But it might actually be closer than you think. Iron Man was very successful, Captain America has a lot of potential to be as well and don't forget that most of Whedon's fan base will watch it no matter what.
I understand what that guy said and he's right to an extent, BUT with all the hype surrounding the past Marvel movies and leading up to The Avengers, it might be head to head with The Dark Knight Rises in the first week sales. Overall, I think The Dark Knight Rises will make more money in the end. I am just happy that we're getting both movies in the same year.
You just can't beat the universal knowledge of Batman to something like The avengers.
Batman has entered into the view of the masses. Everyone knows batman, just like superman. It's just a name that has gone beyond just comic books.
No ammount of marketing is ever going to make the avengers into a bigger name then batman, that kind of a reputation only happens over a many many years. Batman also has the upper hand in that the movies are known to be exceptional and people who are just looking for a good movie will seek it out aswell.
Batman is for everyone, the avengers is just for the fans and people that generally like super hero movies.
A big name and a director like Nolan. Even a big name like superman would have trouble beating that. A nothing name like the avengers just doesn't cut it.
Of course batman will make more money, but how is avengers a nothing name? Thor, Iron Man and Hulk have all been successful in cinema and captain America comes out soon and will no doubt do well at the box office. Plus it's made by Whedon so will be amazing.
but Captain America is gonna flop super hard soooo...
lol wow. you cant judge what the final product will look like from sneaky set photos. are you fucking kidding? nolan has never made a bad movie and i see little reason to believe DNR will be his first.
bane is a cool as shit villain and he will be a worthy adversary. i have little doubt of that.
On July 21 2011 08:42 Talco wrote: Just saw the trailer when I went to go watch Harry Potter. I was a little flustered when I saw the trailer titles, something like "every beginning has an ending." I did not realize the new Batman's were only going to be a trilogy >=(
Nolan's smart enough to not ruin something by continuing it too long and risking messing it up. Just like the Seinfeld people - quit while you're ahead.
EPT
