Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The Dark Knight Rises


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
466 replies to this topic

#1 of 467 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 13,814 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted April 30 2010 - 01:18 PM

http://www.heatvisio...pher-nolan.html

David Goyer is currently working on the script with Jonathan Nolan. A start date for production will be set once Christopher Nolan completes post-production work on Inception. There is currently no title.



#2 of 467 dana martin

dana martin

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,783 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 28 2003
  • Real Name:Dana Martin
  • LocationNorfolk, VA

Posted May 01 2010 - 08:31 AM

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
Playing at the Drive In

Quote:Welles, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Spielberg, Jackson, Wood ?? a true Auteur should be one who follows his artistic vision
 

 


#3 of 467 Paul_Scott

Paul_Scott

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 6,546 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted May 01 2010 - 03:34 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by dana martin 

actually i hope that the script is on par with dark knight...
I'm hoping for something a little less silly and foolish myself.
And better structure wouldn't hurt either.



#4 of 467 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 13,814 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted May 01 2010 - 06:36 PM

I would rather have another movie like Batman Begins than another The Dark Knight. The second film was fantastic, but it opened Gotham up way too much. Batman needs to go back into the shadows.


#5 of 467 Michael:M

Michael:M

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 530 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 27 2006

Posted May 02 2010 - 06:38 AM

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.

"Life began in mystery, and it will end in mystery, but what a savage and beautiful country lies in between." - Diane Ackerman

#6 of 467 Brent M

Brent M

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 4,486 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 15 2001

Posted May 02 2010 - 07:23 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_Scott 



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

"If you're good at something, never do it for free."

#7 of 467 Paul_Scott

Paul_Scott

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 6,546 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted May 02 2010 - 03:11 PM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent M 




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.


#8 of 467 WillG

WillG

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted May 02 2010 - 03:22 PM

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.

STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#9 of 467 nolesrule

nolesrule

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,084 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Joe Kauffman
  • LocationClearwater, FL

Posted May 02 2010 - 03:53 PM

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.


#10 of 467 Paul_Scott

Paul_Scott

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 6,546 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 18 2002

Posted May 02 2010 - 06:12 PM


Quote:
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.
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".
Quote:
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.
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.


#11 of 467 Sam Favate

Sam Favate

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 4,557 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 03 2004
  • Real Name:Sam Favate

Posted May 02 2010 - 11:53 PM

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?




#12 of 467 Steve_Tk

Steve_Tk

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 2,833 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 30 2002

Posted May 03 2010 - 02:15 AM

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

#13 of 467 Ben Osborne

Ben Osborne

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 09 2002

Posted May 03 2010 - 04:09 AM


Quote:
 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).

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.



#14 of 467 JonZ

JonZ

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 03 2010 - 04:42 AM

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.


#15 of 467 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted May 03 2010 - 05:45 AM

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.

Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#16 of 467 JonZ

JonZ

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 03 2010 - 06:09 AM

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.




#17 of 467 Greg_S_H

Greg_S_H

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 14,836 posts
  • Join Date: May 09 2001
  • Real Name:Greg
  • LocationNorth Texas

Posted May 03 2010 - 06:10 AM



Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Tk 

I think that was proven to be false, RE superman.
The studio said, "We don't discuss rumors," which had people thinking it was false, but Nolan later confirmed his involvement.  


#18 of 467 Cory S.

Cory S.

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 983 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 07 2004

Posted May 03 2010 - 07:51 AM

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...

"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves.  But, not the one it needs right now.  So, we'll hunt.  Because he can take.  Because, he's not a hero.  He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector.  A DARK KNIGHT."

#19 of 467 JonZ

JonZ

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted May 03 2010 - 10:23 AM

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.



#20 of 467 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 13,814 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted May 03 2010 - 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_Scott 

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.

I don't think the coda of the Batman Begins should be read generally; Jim Gordon gives him a major pass and credit for inspiring him -- the one honest cop who didn't have the courage to stand up for his ideals when he thought he was alone for holding them. It's one of the most moving parts about Batman Begins, and it's only moderately compromised by the introduction of the Bat Signal -- a crowd-pleasing concession to tradition, adequately foreshadowed by earlier events in the film. I would imagine that most of the cops (including Comissioner Loeb) still view the Batman as a frustrating irritation at best.

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 was my biggest problem with The Dark Knight: after doing an incredible job constructing this fantastic three-dimensional city full of hidden crevaces and dark alley ways out of London, Chicago, Tokyo and Hong King for Batman Begins, Wally Pfister and Nathan Crowley largely set it all aside and used Chicago as a literal stand-in for Gotham City much the way Superman: The Movie used Manhattan as a literal stand-in for Metropolis.
The result was a much more epic feel with Batman's battles facing off in these deep trenches between towering spirals, but at the expense of the atmospherics that the character relies on. The only way Batman can get away with what he does is if he operates from within the shadows, largely in the areas halfway decent cops are too afraid to venture into.

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.
To be fair, the men we saw were on Gordon's team, and Gordon has a soft spot for Batman. Since his unit it supposed to be the elite of the GCPD's investigative forces, it's not surprising that they'd be assigned the manhunt for the Batman. Is it a bit of a stretch? Yes, but it's probably a better explanation than any other version of the time before Gordon became comissioner.

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.
The Joker was not a normal suspect. He was a terrorist who had attacked the city multiple times with further attacks imminent. You can look at the history of any major world power faced with similar stakes and they'll have done the same if not much, much worse. By that point in the film, the entire city was terrified. People weren't thinking long-term, and the main person to worry about risking the prosecution -- the District Attorney -- was himself trapped amidst one of the terrorist's plots at the time. And the Gotham City Police Department was never an exceptionally upstanding police force to begin with.

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.

The movie would argue that it was Harvey Dent's example that pushed them toward those altruistic ends.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users