Batman: Part III -- directed by Christopher Nolan -- July 20, 2012

actually i hope that the script is on par with dark knight, and i wonder how long after the script is approved, that the viral campaign will kick in, the last one was the best build up for almost a year, ready start all over

I'm hoping for something a little less silly and foolish myself.
And better structure wouldn't hurt either.

Nolan doesn't like repeating himself; chances are very good Batman 3 will resemble neither film overtly in tone or theme.

I'm also wondering about the viral campaign; it was actually a 14-month one for TDK, MORE than a year prior to release (it started in May of 2007, with the ibelieveinharveydent.com site opening and viewers helping reveal the close up still of the Joker's face. I hope they'll do something similar.

Nolan's interview with the LA Times indicates that they've come up with a satisfying thematic way to close the trilogy - I wonder if they'll kill off Batman or end with him retiring.

I'm so baffled by this statement I don't even know what to say. All I do know is that I hope Nolan does EXACTLY what worked to make Batman Begins and The Dark Knight so damn good! 

I had some niggling problems with the film immediately after I saw it, but it wasn't until I re-watched it months months later at home that all the massive logic holes, that don't seem to bother many other people of course, made it near impossible to surrender to and enjoy. The film has become one eyeroll after another for me.
It's just recently that I realized the problem with TDK actually starts with Begins coda, when Gordon tells him "y'know, you really started something here." Batman should be public enemy #1 at that point, but instead he gets a major pass and credit for inspiring the once corrupt cops. TDK follows this patent absurdity and takes it to new levels. It would be one thing if he was a stealthy, rarely seen ninja like figure who tries to never make his presence known. But his first scene in TDK he is destroying property left and right, depriving people of their civil rights (both criminals and off duty cops) and basically rolling around the city like he owns it and  using explosives when he feels like it for 'show'. And then in the next scene we see the cops have little enthusiasm for taking him down.
Wow.
This rings so false for several reasons.
The cops in the city abdicate all their authority over to this non affiliated vigilante- why exactly? If the premise were being treated realistically, they would have such a hard on for taking this character down after all the events of the first film, he wouldn't be able to function.
If nothing else, cops don't usually take kindly to civilians that attempt to usurp their authority- especially when those civilians put cops (and the public) in harms way, destroy infrastructure, and consistently evade capture and are using military grade weaponry in the process.

The notion that we could ever get to the point where this character would ever be allowed to interrogate a suspect is absurd- even if you ignore the bobblehead costume and silly voice. It would be one thing is Batman gassed the police and took his liberties that way, but to have the cops endorse his activites and give him carte blanche-when it opens them up to civil and criminal charges and jeopardizes prosecutions- no way.

I don't care how beloved it is, the film is all kinds of sloppy in both its execution (sequences that abruptly end even though there has been no real resolution i.e the party crashing) and in it's themes (Batman and Gordon feel that the city needs the illusion of a white knight why?) Just hours earlier the Jokers social experiment revealed that the population of the city ,including a hardened criminal element, had already reached a state of selfless altruism. You have two mobs in a life or death situation and irrational mob-think never takes over. That's both unrealistic and sloppy.

So let's just not have any Batman anymore at all because the flaws you are describing are inherit to pretty much every version of Batman that ever existed.

You just described the Detective Comics Batman universe in a nutshell. In other words, in terms of reverence to the source material, Nolan hit a pair of home runs.

Or they could just put a little more critical thought into the material at the script stage.
Any basic story editor could read it and then ask "how would a child/cop/wife/civilian/criminal etc logically behave in this circumstance?" "Character 'A' does something, or this 'event' happens- what forms would the blowback assume?"
Actions create logical reactions. Following those through sometimes takes you off the course you want the story to be on, but TDK is what you get when you completely ignore them. A lot of people may not care about logical cause and effect or rational character behavior, and just love the finished product- but that doesn't change the fact the film requires the viewer to "turn off his brain and just go with the flow".
The Adam West series was just as reverent to that era's comic book content. But silly is still silly.

If Batman wants people to think he killed Dent because that will make him seem more of a threat to the criminal element, that's one thing. It's a pragmatic rationalization supported by the scene in the film where Maroni tells him to the effect, 'we know you don't cross that line'.
A logical reaction to that action is then having the police hunt him down for murder.
Action/reaction.
Instead, Nolan serves up this nonsense about the city is fragile and needs to believe in white knights, blah blah blah, when if anything, the films plot has just completely dis-proven that notion (the two boats sequence). Nolan is hell bent on bludgeoning  home a theme that he can't seem to see his film doesn't support. Very odd how spot on he can be sometimes, and absolutely tone deaf a few minutes later.
Edited by Paul_Scott - 5/2/10 at 11:48pm

Nice to see this get a release date, and only two years away (not that long really). I suppose pre-production will begin as soon as a script is complete.

Is Nolan's Superman (he's producing) also set for 2012? December, maybe? Did I read that or am I making it up?

I think that was proven to be false, RE superman.

Paul, are you saying the two boats sequence shows that the people of Gotham can act virtuously even without "white knights" as examples of virtue?  I'm not sure I understand your argument.

Paul I had some of the same issues you did, I was just a bit more willing to let them slide. As said in the Phantom Menace thread some of the complaints you have are part of Batman mythology and have been forever - the batsignal, Gordons assistance,etc.

"But his first scene in TDK he is destroying property left and right, depriving people of their civil rights (both criminals and off duty cops) and basically rolling around the city like he owns it and  using explosives when he feels like it for 'show'. And then in the next scene we see the cops have little enthusiasm for taking him down."

I had issue with the explosives scene as well. I dont think Batman would be willing to set off rocket launchers in the city (see my final point below). As for denying criminals their rights, when hasnt Batman done this at times during his career? But thats also one of the points of the movie - do the ends justify the means? and how far do you go to stop crime? Even one of the viligantes says "What give you the right? Whats the difference between u and us"? This scene also contains what might be my favorite lline in the film, where Batman says "I dont need help" and Crane says "Thats not my diagnosis".  And its long been a question of Batman issues since the 80s - is Batman as dangerous and psychologically screwed up as the people he dresses up as a giant bat to catch. The film never claims Batman is in the right.

"If the premise were being treated realistically, they would have such a hard on for taking this character down after all the events of the first film, he wouldn't be able to function."

Its made pretty clear that Gotham Policy is to arrest Batman. Hes protected by Gordon, but all other cops should be gunning for him. That is told to us in Gordons conversation with Dent. We dont see this happen, but the conversation tells us the police should be trying to stop Batman is the gaps we didnt see between films. When Batman appears, you only have Gordons inner circle around.

"I don't care how beloved it is, the film is all kinds of sloppy in both its execution (sequences that abruptly end even though there has been no real resolution i.e the party crashing)"

Actually if you remember in the discussion thread, quite a few people did have a problem with this scene feeling it had no resolution. Based on production stills, there was a cut scene that did show Joker getting out of Waynes apartment.

"It would be one thing if he was a stealthy, rarely seen ninja like figure who tries to never make his presence known. But his first scene in TDK he is destroying property left and right, depriving people of their civil rights (both criminals and off duty cops) and basically rolling around the city like he owns it and  using explosives when he feels like it for 'show'. "

As we saw in BB that is basically how Batman operates.Stealth, ninja tactics, observation,etc. But having Batman bust this meeting also shows hes been working the criminal element during the gaps between films, with the same tactics previously mentioned.

I had the same issue with that scene as you did - until I realized that Batman had a chance to take down 3 problems here. The Mobsters, Scarecrow - whos he'd been hunting for a year and as well as some of the viligantes. Batman isnt going to need to use such extreme tactics to take down a group or mobsters on a dock (first film) or jewelery theives. But this was a big bust. Ninja tactics or not, thats a large group to take on. With so many "criminals" to take down in one attack - I can buy the rocket launchers to distract,confuse and cause panic.
Edited by JonZ - 5/3/10 at 3:16pm

Sure, the movies are riddled with plot holes, if you think about those situations realistically. The thing you have to ask yourself is: am I bothered by it that much that it destroys the movie for me? You can ask that about every movie, and everyone will react differently to a movie.

The character of Batman is inherently flawed in that he's trained to be a ninja, and whatnot, but uses a glorified tank (in the Nolan movies) and a plane (in Burton's first movie, the animated series and the comics) to move around. I don't care about that, because frankly, Nolan's Batmobile looks incredible in the movie.

Ive always felt superhero movies work best in the "real world" setting. If they take place in fantasy land, you loose the feeling of these characters being exceptional. "Oh theres a guy who looks like a penguin. Hes even got flipper hands. Just another day in Gotham". I feel this is a huge missed opportunity with Xmen. Should people ever really be used to the sight of seeing someone who looks like Beast when you plant the film in a setting of the "real world"?

The problem is when you establish that Batman takes place in reality, people expect the script to work in reality.

Ive explained why the Batman strike in the beginning of TDK works for me. I admit how Joker rigs the hospital or boats is a bigger problem.
(Ras Al Ghul explains that Gotham is so corrupt that they were able to easily infiltrate the police and such. So I buy that Joker can gets guys who - plant Joker cards in a judges paperwork,rig a tunnel or a hospital)

A simple scene earlier in the film showing the Jokers men planting explosives in a tunnel for example, would prob solve Pauls issues with believing Joker could rig the tunnels to explode late in the film. Seeing the scene early in the film, you wouldnt know what they were doing, but it would come together at the end when Joker tells the city the tunnels are rigged to explode. It would solve the problem of being a unbelievable feat done with no preparation to something that had been planned.

But as said, these type of nitpicks could apply to endless list of films.
Edited by JonZ - 5/3/10 at 3:18pm

The studio said, "We don't discuss rumors," which had people thinking it was false, but Nolan later confirmed his involvement.  

JonZ,

The problem with Paul's argument is that, although Nolan is painting a plausible Batman in a not too far from reality version of Gotham City, The Joker character, in essence, is all theme.  He's really not to be thought of as literal in the Dark Knight.  He's meant to push the theme of the film...a physical embodiment of the ideas Nolan wants to push...

Understand your point. But again if you place the film in "reality" ... people who think about what theyre watching are going to find plot holes claiming the film doesnt hold up to lapses in logic.

Even when youre dealing with a superhero - which requires suspension of disbelief - real world setting or not.

I think it was pointed in the Begins thread by someone that the film is hard to take seriously as happening in "reality" when we're watching the Tumbler jumping rooftops and driving on the roof of the church.

Exactly. I don't care that everything that happened in the movie isn't 100% realistic.....it's a comic book movie for crap's sake! All I want is to be entertained for 2+ hours and both of Nolan's Batman films have done that in spades! 

Is there actually any movie where you couldn't find some sort of lapse in logic or characters acting illogically for the purposes of creating drama? Furthermore, holding a superhero fantasy to the same standards of "realism" as a "real world" drama seems illogical to begin with. Also, why does a fictional film world always have to obey the logicality of the real world? Part of the power of films, books or any other creative pursuit is the ability to create a framework with its own set of rules. The creation shouldn't always have to fit into the operational rules of our world.

The Joker's escape during the bank robbery may be illogical and unrealistic in our real world, but did anyone ever hear Nolan say that he was creating a film world that was supposed to be100% analogous to our own? I can't remember him ever claiming that he was trying to make a film where we could believe that a vigilante in an armored suit could logically exist in the "real world". I think he was just trying to make an entertaining film with a take on the characters that made them darker and less comical within their fictional world, than in any previous incarnations.

That  bit didn't bother me at all. I could suspend disbelief for that part if the reaction to it had been realistic or logical. The word 'reaction' here meaning the actions that follow.
What is impossible for me to reconcile is
1) that he finally evades an aerial pursuit by turning off his head/running lights and going 'off road'.
2) that a guy using an armored tank, who's shooting off the equivilent of RPG's in the city, and who 'with depraved indifference' is responsible for the destruction of several police vehicles as well as imperiling the operators lives, is not the subject of an INTENSIVE 24/7 manhunt/investigation until he is captured.
It would be one thing if Nolan showed him performing some super duper sleight of hand to trick them, but it is in fact just the opposite. He busts through barriers and goes through a cleared path in the woods. He leaves a trail that is clear and obvious right up to the waterfall along with plenty of motivation for a concentrated effort for his capture.

I actually like Begins because I enjoy the characters arc and satisfaction of seeing him more or less logically piece together the various aspects of an iconic persona. But it's funny how much the movie aggressively forces me to not pay close attention once he actually becomes Batman. Too many illogical concessions have to be made too often. Once you get into TDK, which is now all Batman, similar concessions have to be made consistently all the way through, from the opening reel to the end credits.

All stories need to hew to their own  internal logic or they elicit a response of "Bullshit!"
If, at the end of the story, Batman can take advantage of millions of cell phones in the city to accomplish one specific goal, then it follows that on a busy urban street you can not slam a bus into a building, let it idle there for a little while, and then slowly pull out and make an escape into slow moving traffic without a few of those millions of people with cell phones making note of it- from their cars, from the sidewalk, etc etc. It's a cute gag, and more witty than anything the character was involved with in the Burton film. But when you give it any real thought at all, it's really not that far removed from something that could have been dropped into the TV series. You wouldn't necessarily have seen it, but I could easily see Neil Hamilton describing the event afterward to Batman in his office- "and he got away in slow moving traffic, you say? The fiend!" "Holy diabolical field trip, Batman!"





I don't think any of my criticisms are going to make much of a difference to anyone. But I'm waiting for the Red Letter Media guy to start tackling these. I said this in another thread awhile ago, but I think the guy has a lot of material to work with here, and I don't expect people to see just how poorly thought out this stuff is until it is fully illustrated for them. What is really disheartening to me, besides seeing so many people easily give this material a pass while ripping others left and right, is that just a few more passes at the script stage could have alleviated quite a few of my complaints. The weaknesses in the two films are not insurmountable, but they are very, very sloppy.

And for Pete's sake, if you are going to be so forgiving of oodles of illogical motivation and logistics, do we really need to experience such a foolish and goofy looking costume and voice on the character? Why does that aspect have to be so rigidly grounded in logic when so much else isn't?
Edited by Paul_Scott - 5/5/10 at 5:26am

Thats how I felt about JJ Abrams Star Trek. I said pretty much those exact words in that discussion thread.

About Batmans escape in Begins, I found the use of the word Palisades in describing where Bruce Wayne lives during dinner with Dent and Rachel in TDK very interesting. The NY/NJ Palisades in how I get to NYC. A long dark road, no lights, lots of woods surrounding the road during the entire length of the drive, and small dark roads, alot of rocky terrain especially on the NY side, etc. Still the Palisades goes through both a huge rural and suburban population. It was kind of brilliant in that that single word immedately described to me what Batmans drive back and forth to Gotham would be like and yes even how the Tumbler might be difficult to track.

While I do have a problem with the overdesigned suit, I dont with Batmans growl. Again going back to the discussion thread I remember someone making a comment about when Batman is taking to Lucius in the cellphone tracking scene, hes talking in the growl and it seemed odd - but Bruce Wayne also growls at Rachel when the Joker crashes the party "Theyre coming for him!".

Batman isnt Spiderman. Theres alot of psychological baggage to the character. The idea of Batman actually growling and snarling was put into my mind way back when I read Frank Millers Year One in the late 80s...."I come in close on the one who looks the strongest... throw him a growl Ive brought all the way from africa".
Edited by JonZ - 5/5/10 at 6:12am

I find this discussion interesting. But what I think people miss when they bring up these issues characterized as plot holes is that what they are actually pointing out is one of the film's biggest themes.

It's easy to say what people would do in a situation. We'd like to think that the police would have an interest in bringing down a vigilante who's taking over their job and blowing stuff up, it would be nice to think that every citizen who witnessed that bus back into the bank would call the police, but that's not the world we live in. What we think we'll do in a situation and what we really do are often two things. And that's one of the film's biggest themes, don't ever underestimate people's desire to not get involved.

Just recently in New York a man who saved a woman from being attacked was stabbed and bled to death on the sidewalk for over an hour as person after person walked by. And it's established that the Gotham Batman lives in is much worse than this reality, and that's what he's trying to change by "inspiring" people to act.

But before he can do that he has to fight the mob. To accomplish that goal, he has to intimidate them, which involves bigger guns and firing off rockets in the middle of downtown. Because of that, he's not embraced as the savior of Gotham like he wants to be. That's his hope for Harvey, to inspire the city to do good where he can't. This is Batman's world view. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, or if the city is inspired or not, but it's what he believes. It's his motivation to do what he does. 

Remember, don't confuse what you would do with what others would do. The Gotham City Nolan built is far more a dangerous place than the world your or I live in, so the people's decisions will be different than ours. You can't really say what they would do because you're not them. Nolan and Nolan and Goyer did think about how these people would react to these situations. And even in the real world people don't always do the right thing when their survival is involved. The citizens of Gotham have learned to not cross the mob lest they wind up dead. The police have learned to not do more than they need to so they can go home to their families every night. It's easier to let the Batman do their job. Not to mention, it was established in "Batman Begins" that most of them were on the take, and they fear that taking down Batman could expose them, especially since he allied himself with the one known honest cop in the city.

Seems Tom Hardy has been cast in "a lead role".

 

Edited by JonZ - 10/14/10 at 6:46am

Interesting. I like Tom Hardy, charismatic in Inception and RocknRolla, superb in Bronson. He wasn't one of the best Star Trek villains but could be a memorable Batman villain if he has been cast as such.

 

 

Title: The Dark Knight Rises

 

Also, no Riddler.

 

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/10/27/christopher-nolan-reveals-title-of-third-batman-film-and-that-it-wont-be-the-riddler/