THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Pre-Release Thread - Page 67

I feel like people have some quantifiable number in their heads as to how much The Joker/Ledger's death attributed to TDK's success. Sure, it added to the fire, no doubt, but what are we talking here -- 25 million, 50 million, 100 million? How much of that loss will TDKR absorb by being "the final chapter"? We haven't even got close to the lead up to release -- I think some of you guys are overestimating how much TDKR will fall short of TDK's returns. Likely it will, but by 50 million at most, says I.

Yeah I'm kinda in mind to go along with Sebastian on this.

 

Movie's gonna be BIG.

I can't really get worked up for box office speculation.

It'll definitely make its marketing budget back if nothing else. 

They really need to push "The Final Chapter" angle in the ads. I've heard more average filmgoers talking about it and they are talking like they think Batman will die in this one. This will get some IMAX boost, but without the 3D bloat The Avengers got, it will be hard to say.

In the first weekend.  

God no!  World Wide.  We aren't going to see a 1 Billion domestic in quite some time.  

I want to believe, but I can't help but think that THE AVENGERS will take some wind out of the Batman sail. Or maybe it'll prime audiences. Who knows.

 

It's not additive is multiplicative. Using the same example some people went for Joker/Ledger, which boosted word of mouth, which made a great release the opening weekend then curiosity sparked even more etc.  It's like saying Bridesmaids was a success 10% due to Wiig legs...

Wait, have we come to a point where people don't like Batman anymore?  When did that happen?

Unless Nolan kills off Alfred, Fox and some little girl in the first 30 seconds, this movie will do very well.   I for one can't wait, Avengers was like a huge pile of cotton candy, and I need something a little more substantial to even out my stomach.

I do not get this silly rivalry. Why can't superhero movies have different tones?
 

Avengers was incredible, and I'll be there opening weekend for TDKR. I think that new Spider-Man looks great too. What difference does it make to us how much money they make?

 

Geek properties dominate pop culture, comics are getting the Hollywood treatment we always wanted them to have, and we're still not happy.

 

Something about "not fun" and "needs more Point Break lines". Go back a few pages. It's a delightful read.

It's been done before, but still rings true:

 

http://www.chud.com/community/t/143378/the-films-of-claire-denis

 

AVENGERS is going to take the wind out of jack shit. If TDKR was coming out this weekend, or hell, this month, maybe. But it's not. It's two months away. People will be primed by then. It's going to get insane, just wait.

 

 

Here's the thing about this (largely fictional) "we just want shiny happy goodtimes superhero movies now" sentiment/faction --  your wishes are being granted! This is the end! TDKR is giving you what you want! Why not embrace it? From here on out, it's all rainbows, unicorns and bat shark repelllent! You've won!!!

 

Hey, he asked.

 

This is a great summary of how I felt coming out of AVENGERS Saturday night. It was a fantastic confection....but fairly weightless. The trailer for TDKR left me hungry for the full meal.

http://www.tumblertour.com/

It's tumbling through America! TODAAAAAAAAAAY!

Yee fuckin' haw.  First stop Bentonville!  Weird.

 

Edit- So it's leaving Louisiana today, and will be there on the 12th... which means that truck could be passing through my town at any moment.

 

...

 

Edited by Bailey - 5/10/12 at 5:39pm

 

 

It breaks my heart that this is not a tumblr.com

I have a stupid question...

 

so Batman is a "wanted" man at the end of The Dark Knight. But he'll continue to fight crime, right?

Why doesn't he just adopt... a new superhero persona? The bat-motif was significant in the first film, but he clearly abandoned anything bat-related in the second. Never mind all the Batman impersonators.

Why doesn't he keep fighting crime as Clam Man, or the Scarlet Revenger or something? They're searching for Batman, how would they assume it's the same guy with a new costume?  Is he THAT wedded to the Batman costume? Hell, he could still maintain the Batman persona in a different outfit.

 

I'm not sure if Batman ever did this in the comics, but I'm certain Spider-Man did, and I'm sure he wasn't the only one.

Eh....I'm a little tired of him to be honest, thrill is just kinda gone at this point, I just don't see how Nolan can really do anything interesting enough with the story, Wayne/Batman was already one of the less interesting things in his films. Still I'll be there opening night like everyone else.

 

But by that point Batman is a symbol. He's achieved his goal by striking fear in the hearts of criminals with his image of Batman. So if he rebooted himself as Clam Man all that work would be thrown out the window and there would be no guarantee that criminals would be running scared from Clam Man.

 

 

 

I still think Batman Begins is the best origin movie of any superhero film and a large part of that has to do with the Bruce Wayne story. Christian Bale is actually pretty great in Begins.

If he really wanted to, he could build the fearsomeness of Clam Man, develop him as someone that strikes fear in the hearts of criminals.

 

Bruce Wayne. Slacker.

Is it Batman people are tied of, or the fans? I enjoy both Nolan films a lot but never find myself wanting to rewatch them. I rather rewatch First Class and Iron Man, not that they are better films, because they are not. To me it's like watching Apocalypse Now, great movie but one that has limited replay value.

I remain unconvinced that this "Batman fatigue" is something that extends beyond online nerd circles.  TDKR may not do $1B worldwide, but it's going to make a shitload of money.

 

The moveigoing public is not tired of the character, nor of Nolan's take on him.

 

Responses like this will always and forever baffle me.

 

"I'm tired of eating broccoli... Hey, could you pass the broccoli?"

 

Why the hell would you go see something opening night when you're "tired" of it, the "thrill" is gone and have come to the preconceived notion that nothing more of "interest" can be done with it? Weirdos.

I disagree with all of this.

 

 

 

I agree with all of this.

 

From the 3 trailers we've been given, this seems to be the gist of where the story starts, as far as I can tell (which will help answer your question):

 

Following the end of The Dark Knight, with the apprehension of the Joker and the outlawing of Batman, it's allowed Bruce to essentially retire. The escalation, as it were, has died down because of the absence of both. Gordon's been pursuing him but with a campaign that has no real teeth, as there's no need with him being MIA and it being relatively peaceful for the past 8 years (which takes his need to crime-fight out of the equation). With Batman's sacrifice and their using Dent as a tragic hero it seems to have worked.  Note the remark about how the Mayor will be dumping Gordon in the Spring because he's a "war hero" and it's "peace time". Only it all seems to be short-lived by Selina's "You think this can last? There's a storm coming..." speech and what Bane inevitably brings, which seems to be kick-started by the "wall street" attack. The police catch wind and follow him to the football stadium massacre.

 

From there we'll get the battle with Batman and Bane in the waterworks where he'll get injured, de-masked, and captured, with no one having a clue as to what's happened to him. (I wonder if the use of having him be a little fuzzy on the face is an indicator of being taken by surprise when Bane pops up and he suddenly has to spring into action after such a long hiatus. Yes, I think about these things.) He's dragged and thrown into the prison where he learns more about Bane's origins and re-examines his efforts, crawls out, making his way back home, seeing Alfred and not fully recuperated. Fear of Bane and what he ran into before makes him apprehensive, as he makes as much apparent when he goes to speak to Gordon after he gets thrown down the hole. He suits back up and joins the people fighting in the streets and takes a bat-dump on Bane.

 

That's essentially the gist of it, from what I can tell. There are still little questions I have regarding the timeline, though, which put cracks in my theory:

 

• What are Gordon and the police force up to in Batman's absence? I can't imagine they'd be able to put up much of a fight for very long once he's out of the picture.
• Unless I'm wrong, the snow on the ground seems to account for time passing. Yet we see Bruce suited up talking to pre-injured Gordon in it, which doesn't really jive with my theory above.
• If you toss Bruce into the inescapable prison, why is there seemingly some sort of attack on it?

 

Anyway... tomorrow's July, right?

Edited by Shaun H - 5/18/12 at 10:20am

Haha, man dude you ain't for that. What if TASM does'nt suck. Would'nt it be great if it turns out The Avengers, TDKR & TASM we're all great films, that would obviously be the best case scenario.

I'd say it's mostly the fans.  I distinctly remember the anti-Batman/Nolan occurring right when people were absolutely going ballistic about The Dark Knight--primarily over The Joker.  So, as people are prone to do, people's irritation of the glowing praises of the film naturally transferred over to the film itself.

 

TDK is a flawed, flawed beast, but one that is gorgeously directed, and Nolan presents Batman's world in a cinematic fashion that few other superhero films have managed to do.  It's a good film and a great comic book movie, and it's a goddamned shame that it almost seems impossible to have a decent conversation about it without it turning into a pissing contest.

What does saying "flawed" even mean? Such a common critique I hear about films, that is never followed by justification. You say flaw, I'm thinking something like the casting of Hayden for Star Wars. A aspect that falls apart no matter who is viewing it. Stuff in films may not work for you, but I think it's unfair to label something a flaw unless it ruins the entire film.

What? How? A flaw is a flaw. If have a perfectly good shirt except for some thread dangling from one of the buttons, it's a flawed shirt. I may still wear it (I am right now, in fact), but I can't go around saying it's a perfect shirt.

I disagree completely.  All films have flaws, things that don't exactly work.  The Dark Knight has several, many of them noticeable upon multiple viewings.

 

However, TDK is such an effective film that they almost don't even matter; I'm just way too busy being engrossed by the film to even be bothered by certain things.

 

 

Though, the Gordon fake-out has always been rather bewildering to me.  The hell was the point of faking his death?

A "flaw" discussion is the very definition of Straw Man, as it implies that films aren't made up of wrinkles and idiosyncracies largely reflective of the filmmakers genuine intelligence, humanism and politics, surmising that somewhere out there, there is a flawless film somewhere. Like, say, "Soul Man," or "The Tao Of Steve."

But if it has a picture of a zombie fighting a shark on the shirt, then no matter how many holes and/or tatters, it remains a perfect shirt.

Ergo ad hoc suma cum vis a vis. Latin.

 

If you watched it multiple times I hope you caught the part where he said he wanted to remove his family from danger.  I saw the film once, and remember that.

A flaw, to me, means there is a problem with the film that effects everyone viewing it.  You watch Alien 3, and their are flaws in the visual effects, and flaws in the appearance of the Alien from scene to scene.  Saying the Cell Phone plot of the Dark Knight is a flaw, is just a lazy way of saying 'hey, this didn't work for me, and here's why".   A air bubble in a paint job for a car is a flaw.  A loose thread is something you can cut off btw.  bad analogy. 

 

Flaw shouldn't be something that is subjective. 

Masochism. Annnd let's face it, the flick is going to look great on IMAX and I'm sure otherwise it's at least worth one or two viewings. Like Nolan's other Bat flicks were.

I think he's fine in BB, but I think the movie starts to go down hill after Wayne becomes Batman.

 

The internet would explode. Some people can't comprehend liking two movies at once let alone three. There can be only one!

A "loose thread" is also "what happened after Batman/Rachel left the party at Wayne's penthouse?"

Just looked at that Collider article with the Bane info. I didn't mind looking at that, but then the artcle went and nonchalantly spoiled another bit of info I didn't want to know about, that I hadn't seen indicated anywhere else. Grr.

 

Oh well. I also skimmed through some of the Batman/Bane comics from '93 or so, "Knightsfall" or something. I remembered reading a novelization of it as a kid (I was big into Batman TAS at the time). Most of it was pretty damn bad, nowhere near the level of special stuff like Dark Knight Returns or Killing Joke, which was all I had read before. The finale with Bane and Batman's confrontation had it's moments, though. I was mainly looking for things that might get referenced in the movie, but there isn't a whole lot to go on. Wikipedia has all the info you need if you're curious about comic Bane.

 

You mean like a fan edit?

The arrogance of some fan editors amuses me. "Clearly I can make a better film despite the fact that what I list as problems are more like nitpicks!" Or you've got idiots who think that, say, cutting out the character stuff of the Nolan films makes for better "pacing", when what they really mean is "getting rid of the 'boring stuff' to get to the action".

I would highly recommend reading the GN or actual issues of Knightfall, not the Wikipedia.  The aftermath (Knightquest and Knightsend) left a lot to be desired, but Knightfall was very short of being awesome.  I always found Dixon to be a fun and entertaining writer, and nothing needs to be stated about O'neill and even Alan Grant was involved in the planning.  Moench's writing was brought up by working with the rest.  The buildup from introducing the concept of Bane in March of 91, until Batman 500 was all a great period of Batman books.  Bane broke him down to nothing.  Physically, mentally.  The breaking of his back may be what the series was known for, but he broke the man before the back.  Bane remains one of the most direct and formidable villains Bats has ever faced (when in the hands of a capable writer).   The Graphic Novel is well worth your time, and definitely near either DKR or Killing Joke, though both of those are a less scope (Killing joke particularly).  

He took responsibility for Two-Face's crimes in part so criminals would be convinced there was a chance he'd kill them. Being known for non-lethal methods wasn't working, as seen when he interrogated Maroni and the guy laughed in his face. Either he was going to have to find a way to be more intimidating or resolve to torture anyone who wasn't afraid of him.

 

Also, you've got to think that the Batman "killings" have made the entire vigilante concept toxic for Gotham. Even if no one makes a connection between that Batman character who's mysteriously disappeared and this new vigilante, people will still be remembering Batman and wondering if this guy is going to go psycho too. Vigilantism is still against the law and now Gotham has a zero-tolerance policy on it, no matter who's catching crooks.