"The Dark Knight Rises"

[StarFuryG7]

I know I didn't get to it here, but I saw this Saturday night, and it was okay, but the last film was better. Anyone else feel free to chime in about it if you saw it.

Over at io9:

Before and after Bane audio shows how The Dark Knight Rises cleaned up the villain’s mumbles

Last year, we got to see the first six minutes of The Dark Knight Rises early — and the supervillain Bane sounded terrible. Weeks later, director Chris Nolan promised that audience members would be able to understand the villains mumbles, but there's been some controversy over how much,...

More » io9.com/5930271/before-and-after-bane-audio-shows-how-the-dark-knight-rises-cleaned-up-the-villains-mumbles

[TrekBeatTK]

I still like Batman Begins the best, despite it's third act being a little more muddled than it needed. The Dark Knight is okay, and the first hour is great, but the fact that the rest of it takes place over a couple of days just makes it unbelievable that so much of Joker's plans had to have been set up in advance, though it seemed like he was doing it off the cuff. Ultimately, I've decided that the whole "I'm an agent of chaos" speech is a lie. Joker IS a man with a plan or none of the movie makes sense. In fact, I don't think Joker is ever fully honest in any line in the whole film. For me, the movie has weak writing but Ledger sold it well.

The following will definitely contain some SPOILERS, so fair warning.

I like Dark Knight Rises ultimately more than its predecessor. It played on similar themes, but I thought that the anarchy here made a bit more sense coming from these characters. I liked that they included Bane breaking Batman, which is the one comic moment the character is known for. I also liked how it wasn't just one more movie in a franchise, but brought things full circle to the first film.

There were definite lazy writing moments regarding the 8 year gap between films where suddenly Bruce just disappears. We don't learn any particulars of what occurred between movies to really sell the state of things now. The movie yet again borrows from Frank Miller's take on things. I saw the movie twice (and will likely go again) and I was glad that the "twist" toward the end actually made perfect sense and that the main plot actually tracks pretty well. I like that action was spread over months, and that we got to see snow in Gotham for the first time since Batman Returns (aside from it artificially freezing in Batman and Robin).

I thought Anne Hathaway did a pretty good job with Selina Kyle and I liked that they didn't go all out making her "CATWOMAN". The costume subtly implied it, and that was enough. I was glad to see her back to the character's cat burgling roots as well.

There are of course weaknesses. Bane's voice was odd, like he sounded sort of scottish at times, and the sound mix made it seem very much overdubbed and not organic to the moment. There were certain Darth Vader echos to the character, down to him choking one of his lackeys. Why would Lucius Fox have a bunch of Tumblers made if the army didn't want them? Answer: so the bad guys can use them later. Especially knowing that the presence of the blueprints for them nearly led to Batman's identity getting out, is it a good idea to have three or four Batmobiles lying around Wayne Enterprises?

I found it funny the similarites between Bane and Shinzon. In many ways Tom Hardy was almost playing the same character. He even has a line about the benefits of darkness at one point.

The worst thing about the movie for me was the half-hearted ending that just wasn't set up enough to be believable. The Jack Bauer element of the climax was a stretch enough, but to think that any of this was survivable is nonsense given what we saw onscreen. So the final moment while a nice ending for Wayne was not set up well enough to be taken seriously. I almost wonder if it was the product of a last-minute rewrite. ...And why does nobody connect the fact that BATMAN blew up over the water with the fact that BRUCE WAYNE is suddenly dead. How did Wayne supposedly die? Wouldn't this be a clear sign to Gotham that Wayne was Batman (at least until Blake maybe comes out as Batman)? Besides the shots clearly showing Wayne in the cockpit moments before the bomb detonated, remember that Batman had been (fatally?) knifed by Talia not long before. So how and when did he eject, get medical attention and leave the country with no one knowing, as well as fake his death as Bruce Wayne?

The ending actually felt too familiar because that's essentially how House ended this year as well.

Despite the cheap "My first name is Robin" gag, I liked those aspects of Blake's character. This was the closest we would ever get to having Batman and Robin in this movie, and it worked. It was like half Robin and half "Batman Beyond".

Anyway, these flaws aside I found the movie enjoyable on the whole. A bit too earnest in places, though that's the nature of Nolan's universe. It was a good way to close out the trilogy, and it makes for good marathon viewing.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

I think this movie has been out long enough that the people who read this board will have seen it, so no worries about spoilers.

I liked the movie. But I am not a big fan of the Nolanverse because his desire for realism takes away some of the classic Batman elements.

I think that's a big reason I didn't like Dark Knight as much as others.

I actually liked this movie MORE than Dark Knight in part because unlike all the other villains, I thought they did a great job nailing the character of Bane.

Of course, it was a little hard to understand Bane's dialogue.

It's interesting that Nolan strives for realism, but has Batman come back from injuries that would be impossible to recover from by hanging around and then doing pushups. If only it were that simple to recover from crippling injuries.

[TrekBeatTK]

Aug 1, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's interesting that Nolan strives for realism, but has Batman come back from injuries that would be impossible to recover from by hanging around and then doing pushups. If only it were that simple to recover from crippling injuries.

Yes, it bugs me when people talk about "reality" in the Nolanverse. It's more like he has a personal sense of verisimilitude, something that Donner advocated for with Superman as well. Just as there's no "reality" to Harvey Dent running around with half his face gone (or the fact that he wasn't rushed to emergency surgery for skin grafts as soon as he was brought to the hospital!), so to there's no reality to things like Wayne's recovery or there being no adverse effects of a nuclear bomb exploding just offshore. My sister responded after the movie, "So... all it takes to fix a broken back is for someone to shove your spine back in place and then hang you from a rope for a day."

There's no good way to solve this issue though. Even in the comic books, I think there was some magical aspect involved.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

Well, we can assume he was hanging from that rope for weeks or even months.

I wish that Bale had more of a loyalty to the character over a loyalty to Nolan.

I think he was a good Batman, but I would have enjoyed seeing him in a Justice League movie.

[StarFuryG7]

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

The Dark Knight is okay, and the first hour is great, but the fact that the rest of it takes place over a couple of days just makes it unbelievable that so much of Joker's plans had to have been set up in advance, though it seemed like he was doing it off the cuff. Ultimately, I've decided that the whole "I'm an agent of chaos" speech is a lie. Joker IS a man with a plan or none of the movie makes sense.

Of course he was a man with a plan, and his purpose was to be an agent of chaos. That doesn't mean he intended to act as an agent of chaos by doing everything off the cuff. His whole objective in being an agent of chaos was to make it as difficult for law enforcement and Batman to corner him and stop him from spreading chaos throughout the City.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

For me, the movie has weak writing but Ledger sold it well.

I thought the writing in the second film was pretty solid actually, for the most part. It certainly held together better than the third entry in this trilogy. I think one of the problems with "Batman Begins" was that some of the writing was weak, so that movie simply didn't dazzle me as much as the second.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I like Dark Knight Rises ultimately more than its predecessor. It played on similar themes, but I thought that the anarchy here made a bit more sense coming from these characters. I liked that they included Bane breaking Batman, which is the one comic moment the character is known for. I also liked how it wasn't just one more movie in a franchise, but brought things full circle to the first film.

It did bring things full circle to the first film, whereas the second movie seemed like more of a separate, independent story --more of a throw-in if you will, but I also think that was intended, especially since its focus was to be the Joker. But if you look at the objectives of all three of the major antagonists from each of the films, their goals were very similar, if not identical in many respects: that being destruction. The Joker just intended for it to be more of a longer drawn out and agonizing demise of the City and its occupants/citizens. He wanted it to be as painful as possible for as long as he could drag it on.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

I saw the movie twice (and will likely go again) and I was glad that the "twist" toward the end actually made perfect sense and that the main plot actually tracks pretty well.

Are you talking about Miranda's one-eighty? Because to me that just cheapened the whole plot, and I found it difficult to buy into for a variety of reasons. So Miranda waited patiently over the course of a decade or so, biding her time, so that she could perpetrate this final act of revenge, and kill both herself and Bane in the process, just to please a father she resented because of how he felt about Bane? Suddenly her father's death is what changes her mind and lets her put her own resentments of him aside? Sorry, it was ridiculous, especially for a woman who by then was sitting on the top of the world, enjoying its wealth and riches. It seems to me she could have done more to make Bane's life more pleasurable and worth living at that point as well for that matter.

It just didn't hold up for me under cursory scrutiny.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

The worst thing about the movie for me was the half-hearted ending that just wasn't set up enough to be believable. The Jack Bauer element of the climax was a stretch enough, but to think that any of this was survivable is nonsense given what we saw onscreen.

So then you don't think he could have dropped that bomb moments before its detonation and high-tailed it out of there? Because I think that's exactly what he did, and of course we have no idea what the top speed of the Bat was, as that's never even alluded to. For all we know it could have reached speeds equivalent to an F-16 fighter jet, which would be above Mach 2.

I don't want to get too caught up on that point though. If you feel it wasn't believable, hey, it's fiction, so it's not worth getting all twisted into knots over in my humble opinion. It is what it is --a comic book movie.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

...And why does nobody connect the fact that BATMAN blew up over the water with the fact that BRUCE WAYNE is suddenly dead.

Well, some knew, and some probably figured it out, or at the very least seriously suspected it, though without evidence to support the theory. However, that's sort of glossed over, and so it isn't deemed particularly important to the film.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

How did Wayne supposedly die?

Well, with all the chaos that Bane had brought upon the City, does it really matter? Some may have just assumed that he got killed somewhere along the way, as with so many other people, especially those who were wealthy, once Bane took the City. How many of them did they banish into "exile" on the ice, which was obviously a death sentence?

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Besides the shots clearly showing Wayne in the cockpit moments before the bomb detonated, remember that Batman had been (fatally?) knifed by Talia not long before.

Obviously he hadn't been fatally knifed by her. She wounded him, with her intent being for him to survive until the bomb detonated so he could know that he failed right up until that final moment.

Jul 31, 2012 16:21:37 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

So how and when did he eject, get medical attention and leave the country with no one knowing, as well as fake his death as Bruce Wayne?

To me this is a minor point. Wayne had resources and could have sought medical attention almost anywhere, and then simply paid off a doctor or hospital to remain quiet. Again, it's a comic book movie, so stuff like this is not worth getting too caught up on, especially when there are easy explanations to it.

[StarFuryG7]

Aug 1, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I think this movie has been out long enough that the people who read this board will have seen it, so no worries about spoilers.

I liked the movie. But I am not a big fan of the Nolanverse because his desire for realism takes away some of the classic Batman elements.

I think that's a big reason I didn't like Dark Knight as much as others.

Well, I think both you and TK are wrong on this point, and I think the popularity of the second film also speaks for itself. It was received better by the critics, and it made so much damn money at the box office that I don't think TDKR will even do as much business.

Aug 1, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I actually liked this movie MORE than Dark Knight in part because unlike all the other villains, I thought they did a great job nailing the character of Bane.

The plot and how it was executed simply didn't hold together as well as the second film. And while Bane is a formidable villain, he comes across as more easily dismissed and pathetic once you find out that he's not really the brains behind all that had happened up to that point. At least the Joker did everything on his own, and pulled it off until the very end, when his plan finally collapsed. But you never look at him and think to yourself, "Oh, well, it wasn't even him who thought all this up then." Bane looks silly in that respect once it's become clear what was supposedly going on the whole time without anyone realizing it until the knife gets thrust in.

Aug 1, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Of course, it was a little hard to understand Bane's dialogue.

His voice got on my nerves, and there were places where his dialogue was less than clear. But if you looked at that article over on Blastr from the other day, you can see all the work they ended up having to put into cleaning that up.

I also didn't think it was even Hardy's voice while watching the film. I really believed they dubbed someone else's voice into those scenes.

Overall I don't see how Hardy could have been pleased with that role, since it handicapped so much of his performance and ability to perform by virtue of the mask.

Aug 1, 2012 9:02:36 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's interesting that Nolan strives for realism, but has Batman come back from injuries that would be impossible to recover from by hanging around and then doing pushups. If only it were that simple to recover from crippling injuries.

I agree --I didn't feel they had to make it a point of describing him as having been so physically crippled in the movie, especially in the hospital scene, although it does carry over from the second film. But to say that the man had no cartilage left in his knee (which is why he's seen walking with a cane at the beginning) was just totally unnecessary, and makes his feats and ability to engage in physical combat that much more unbelievable. Nolan went too far with that.

[StarFuryG7]

Aug 1, 2012 9:51:10 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

Yes, it bugs me when people talk about "reality" in the Nolanverse. It's more like he has a personal sense of verisimilitude, something that Donner advocated for with Superman as well. Just as there's no "reality" to Harvey Dent running around with half his face gone (or the fact that he wasn't rushed to emergency surgery for skin grafts as soon as he was brought to the hospital!), so to there's no reality to things like Wayne's recovery or there being no adverse effects of a nuclear bomb exploding just offshore.

Well, okay, although again, we are talking about comic book movies here, so some of this should be dismissed by virtue of the kind of entertainment it is despite Nolan wanting to make it appear more realistic. However, do the two of you really prefer the Tim Burton approach? Because honestly, I sure as hell don't.

Aug 1, 2012 9:51:10 GMT -5 TrekBeatTK said:

My sister responded after the movie, "So... all it takes to fix a broken back is for someone to shove your spine back in place and then hang you from a rope for a day."

Well, yes, because he had a slipped disk obviously, even though doing what was done to correct it is very risky.

But look at where they were at the time.

[CRAMBAM]

Yeah, but I think Ledger's death had something to do with the popularity of that movie. I didn't even think he was that great. I didn't feel like I was watching the JOKER. I just felt I was watching a crazy guy in clown paint.

I'm not disputing popularity. But then again, Avatar made the most money ever, and I think it was terrible.

Do I prefer the Tim Burton approach? No. I thought those movies (and the Schumacker ones) were horrible. Burton started down the path of killing the villains, which I thought was stupid.

The best approach to me was the cartoons. They nail the characters.

[StarFuryG7]

Aug 3, 2012 6:50:53 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Yeah, but I think Ledger's death had something to do with the popularity of that movie. I didn't even think he was that great. I didn't feel like I was watching the JOKER. I just felt I was watching a crazy guy in clown paint.

Well, he certainly wasn't a traditional Joker, nor was he meant to be though. However, I thought he was great --the best Joker I'd ever seen, and keep in mind that I wasn't even really expecting much from that movie necessarily, or from Ledger as that character. The guy literally blew me away, and I couldn't even imagine someone playing that role as effectively ever because I found his performance to be that powerful.

But do you really believe that Ledger's death is what propelled the success of that movie at the box office? I don't. I don't think he was that popular of an actor to warrant that kind of reaction. I think the movie had good word-of-mouth on the part of those people who went and saw it, which made others curious to want to check it out for themselves.

Aug 3, 2012 6:50:53 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I'm not disputing popularity. But then again, Avatar made the most money ever, and I think it was terrible.

I didn't think "Avatar" was terrible actually. Did it have a despicable script and story because of the way it depicted humanity? Absolutely. But it was a great spectacle, and I've always felt that there were things Cameron could have done to make it less of an anti-human screed. However, he's stuck in the 60s as David Brin said, so why would anyone expect anything different from a guy who thinks like Cameron? And let's be honest --it wasn't just human beings that he was condemning in that movie, but Americans.

Aug 3, 2012 6:50:53 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Do I prefer the Tim Burton approach? No. I thought those movies (and the Schumacker ones) were horrible. Burton started down the path of killing the villains, which I thought was stupid.

I think those movies have had even bigger problems than killing off the villains. I know the Batman Comics always had more of a dark tone to them than other superhero comics, like Superman, the Fantastic Four or most of the others, but Burton's depiction of the Batman character's world was too dark, and I've never been a fan of Burton's work in general. The guy's films have always annoyed me more than anything, with the exception of "Ed Wood", which I think he did a great job on in contrast to all of his other works.

[CRAMBAM]

That's the thing though--if it's not the traditional Joker, it's not the Joker.

Do I think Ledger's death was the reason it was a success? Of course not. Do I think it helped with the hype? Yes. His death made him more popular than he was while alive.

As for Avatar, can't argue with you. Yes, it was a great effects movie. But the left wing extremist slant was so bad it ruins it.

And yes, the other Batman movies have a LOT of problems, but killing off the villains was a pet peeve of mine. And yes, I'm not a Burton fan either.

[TrekBeatTK]

Gonna touch on a bunch of stuff brought up here.

I like Ledger's Joker overall. I think he captured aspects that were present in some of the comics particularly the later ones. I thought there was definitely a twisted serial killer in there, as well as a guy playing games with authorities. Sometimes I didn't feel like elements of his plans were enough of a joke on society, which is what I think the character should be all about. He's a game-player. If comedy is about the unexpected, then Joker's comedy is about toying with societal norms, i.e. I'll be safe if I do this, but no it kills me. At times I thought Nolan made him too much of a political anarchist moving him in the direction that he brought Bane in for. For example, the ferry boat thing doesn't work for me. If he's all about being a kind of psychological terrorist, then blowing them up spoils the joke. So to have him both planning to blow them up anyway and EXPECTING them to blow each other up didn't feel authentic to me. He loses his power that way. But that's just me. There are odd elements in Nolan's film that just don't quite sit right. In ways his Joker echos real characters like the Zodiac killer. But this is another problem that occurred to me recently; why didn't Gotham get the FBI involved? Surely some high level profiler might be helpful to figure out his next move. Despite its flaws, I appreciate that Dark Knight Rises finally put Gotham on a national scale, and we saw the President's reaction to these things.

we discussed the surprise Miranda Tate twist. I should clarify, I do think it's weak that she just bided her time for 8 years that way to make her the villain. Though it does echo the surprise appearance of Ra's al Ghoul at the end of Batman Begins (which was also something of a weakness). When I mentioned how the plot held up, I was thinking more about the identity of the child in the pit. The revelation that it WASN'T Bane at first bugged me because up to then it was a way to make Bane a direct parallel of Wayne, as he should be. And yet, that twist really does hold up. It's perfectly scripted and executed. But yes, the ultimate finale is all over the place.

I do like Burton's Batman, particularly the first one. My only problem with the first one is the slightly cartoonish transformation of the Joker (but true to some of the comics), and Kim Basinger who I thought was weak. Oh, and some of the Prince music. But on the whole I thought he really got it and it was dark without being too Frank Miller (have I mentioned I hate Frank Miller?). Batman Returns is all manner of weird and is a very different film. There are things I really like about it, and consider it more of an experimental Batman film. It's definitely got silly elements (penguins with missiles? really?) and is oddly dark and sort of mystical, but it has a special charm that both Schumacher films lack completely. I do think that Batman and Robin gets a bit too much hate and I like it better than Batman Forever (though by NO MEANS is it a good movie). I am a fan of Burton's work on the whole, though I admire some of it more than I love (I still don't get Beetlejuice at all). His recent movies have lost something. I agree Ed Wood is great. If you haven't seen Big Fish, I recommend it as his best film of the past 15 years. It's very different from most of his other works, and yet there are correlations.

Cram mentioned the animated series. I'm not as familiar with most of it; I didn't watch it when I was younger because I've always preferred Superman to Batman. Though I did check out the Return of the Joker on his recommendation years ago and enjoyed it. When I'm through with Firefly, I'm giving serious consideration to diving into the DC animated universe.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

The DC Animated Universe is pretty damn good. I always found that most things aren't as cool as say when I was a kid, but when it comes to the DC characters, there have been some major stepups.

Batman: TAS was good, but as the show got older, it got better, especially as they were moving toward Justice League.

Sounds like you haven't watched Superman The Animated Series either. That show had the best on screen Superman story I have ever seen.

[TrekBeatTK]

No, didn't watch Superman either. At the time as I recall, it was on on Saturday mornings and there were other things I watched. Ah, the last beautiful gasp of the era of Saturday morning cartoons.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

That cartoon had the best Superman 2 part storyline I have ever seen on TV or movies, cartoon or otherwise.

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

The Bane origin story that got cut from The Dark Knight Rises

Did you ever wonder about the real origin story of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises? The film's costume designer says it was filmed but didn't make the final cut. *Warning: spoilers to follow!*

MORE: blastr.com/2012/08/the-bane-origin-we-didnt.php