The Dark Knight Rises *SPOILERS*

[IrishJedi]

I'm talking about the wide-eyed wonder of reading a comic book as a kid. I think TDKR did a better job of catering to that, not that it was a literal panel to screen translation. Heck the Schumacher films probably did that the best if that's your litmus test.

No. My litmus test is some of the recent Marvel films, as I just said. They strike the perfect balance, while Nolan's movies mostly stay on the wrong side of self-seriousness. Schumacher and Nolan are the two extremes. With the reboot, I don't want either.

 

[Khev]

I meant that the Schumacher films did a better job of sticking to the comics than other Batman films, not that they did a better job than the Marvel films.

And if the Nolan films stay on the wrong side of self-seriousness, at least it's *good* self-seriousness. I can understand you wanting a Batman movie that's Batman, Batman, Batman, Batman instead of Heat, Batman, Heat, Batman but at least Heat is still awesome.

 

[thenammagazine]

I meant that the Schumacher films did a better job of sticking to the comics than other Batman films, not that they did a better job than the Marvel films.

And if the Nolan films stay on the wrong side of self-seriousness, at least it's *good* self-seriousness. I can understand you wanting a Batman movie that's Batman, Batman, Batman, Batman instead of Heat, Batman, Heat, Batman but at least Heat is still awesome.

Proof Khev doesn't know what he's talking about (and with all the wishywashy should be in politics).

 

[Khev]

Proof Khev doesn't know what he's talking about

 

[IrishJedi]

If only the Nolan movies were Heat, Batman, Heat, Batman. Instead, they're Heat, Heat, Heat, Heat, 007, 007, Heat, Heat, Heat, Batman, Heat, 007, Heat.

And "the wide-eyed wonder of reading a comic book as a kid". That's THE AVENGERS, not TDKR. And that's what I want from the next Batman movies.

 

[Khev]

If only the Nolan movies were Heat, Batman, Heat, Batman. Instead, they're Heat, Heat, Heat, Heat, 007, 007, Heat, Heat, Heat, Batman, Heat, 007, Heat.

You forgot True Lies.

But you get the point. Everything you just listed are good elements when done right, and Nolan certainly did.

 

[IrishJedi]

You forgot True Lies.

Damn. Good point. There's another one, too, but it's escaping me at the moment.

But you get the point. Everything you just listed are good elements when done right, and Nolan certainly did.

That's fine. But it's not really Batman. And certainly not superhero comic book-y.

 

[Khev]

Damn. Good point. There's another one, too, but it's escaping me at the moment.

Blues Brothers? Star Wars? Up?

 

[thenammagazine]

Damn. Good point. There's another one, too, but it's escaping me at the moment.

Cry-Baby.

 

[IrishJedi]

Cry-Baby.

 

[DiFabio]

There's influences and homages in every film. Directors borrow stuff all the time. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

Nolan was a young guy and even a kid when these films came out just like us, especially with 007. Nothing wrong with some of that being injected into the film.

TDKR sure does have a lot of it though. It has nods and influences to everything. Films, comics, etc.

You'd be surprised how many things were borrowed from the comics and graphic novels alone. Some of the words lifted right out of the books.

 

[IrishJedi]

Oh, I know. And character names. I'm talking more about fidelity and tone.

 

[Khev]

I'm assuming you guys would have prefered that the Nolan movies not be considered actual "Batman" movies and that the characters were just named something else?

We all loved True Lies but if Harry Tasker was named James Bond and it was labeled an official Bond movie instead of Goldeneye for instance I could see a lot of people saying, "what the hell, that was cool but not Bond at all."

Or if Indy was a 1930's James Bond (since Spielberg was leaning toward that character too.) Or if Luke was named Flash Gordon who used the Force instead of a laser pistol. And so on.

Nolan basically made a tribute film with today's filmmaking sensibilities but, unlike TL, SW, and Indy didn't actually make up his own character to allow for easier separation of the differences.

 

[IrishJedi]

That could have been pretty interesting, actually.

 

[DiFabio]

It could have been a lot worse.


In the initial stages of production in Batman Begins I believe it was said that Goyer had to convince Nolan why Batman should wear a cape and Scarecrow a mask. It wasn't until he found a way to incorporate a practical use that they were green lit.

That's why the TDK is so extreme.

If it's true though (and I think the Scarecrow mask rumor is) Nolan let up considerably. Originally Batman was going to sport a "cape back pack" when on the Batpod and during sequences, such as fights, where the cape wouldn't be needed. Probably the original intents for Batman Begins (supposedly the TDK suit is the one they always wanted).

Thankfully though Nolan understood and "got" the look and beauty of the cape, especially the way it flowed on the Batpod (which they originally thought was going to get caught in the tires, another reason for the cape).



I don't think the films are "Batman in name only", Batman and his world is in there, especially in Batman Begins. It really gets muddled with TDKR though. Howard Hughes, Tale of Two Cities, 007, Disaster film etc. then not so subtle comic references thrown in to remind folks what it is, "Robin" Blake, "I must break you".

 

[TheProcrastinator]

Nolan's movies mostly stay on the wrong side of self-seriousness.

But are they really? Though the storytelling can be a bit heavy-handed at times, all of the themes in the three movies are 100% Batman related and fit perfectly into that character's mythos. Even all of the political themes of TDKR are drawn directly from the comics. Also, the brooding, nihilistic tones of the films(especially TDK) are very fitting for a Batman story. Putting it all into a "real world" stylisation, only makes this elseworld interpretation more unique.

I find, that the "self-serious" reputation, comes not from the movies, but rather from the whole media craze and hype, that has grown around them. The films(again, especially TDK) generated such a different vibe from the rest of the superhero genre, at the time of premiere, that viewers and critics alike, started throwing around words like "serious", "political", "topical", "zetigeist" in such quantities, that it has warped the way these films are viewed by the public.

I wouldn't call this trilogy self-serious. Like I said, the narration can be crude and heavy-handed at times, but there are no unnecessary political themes, that would be out of place in a Batman movie, while the "seriousness" of the plot, only serves to make it more compeling.

Marvel films are fun and all, but often when I read comments prasing movies like "Avengers", for their unrestrained comic-book style, it seems to me that it is just a reactionary, allergic response to all this talk of serious superhero films. I mean we had campy and cartoony superhero films for decades now, and few people ever considered them to be anything worthwhile, other than fans of the source material. But all of a sudden, this over-the-top kitschiness is supposed to be actually preferable to the more serious approach? I don't buy it.

It seems to me, that many of the people demanding, a more comic-like Batman, do so not becouse Nolans vision is bad, but becouse this whole media craze around his films, has made their usual choice of movie entertainment seem cheap in comparison.

The Trilogy is complete. Nolan's Bat-flicks hype will slowly fade away, Marvel will take over and after a short period of time, people all over the world, will once again start grumbling that superhero genre is killing the cinema. That if You're not sentimental about the source material, then all this comic-book style is just unbearable, campy just kitsch and that Marvel releases the same, cookie-cutter products every summer. Who's willing to make a long-term bet?

 

[IrishJedi]

The "self-serious" label comes from the fact that Nolan is so averse to the "comic book-y" elements and so stubbornly adamant that the films be "grounded in reality". Hell, he even had to be convinced to have Scarecrow wear a god damn mask. It's as if he thinks that stuff is beneath him and his films. Too "childish". He probably thinks THE AVENGERS is a joke.

I get and actually applaud the idea to ground these films in at least some reality. But Nolan does go a bit too far. Afterall, the entire conceit of the character itself is complete fantasy anyway. Embrace it.

And, no, I don't think the Nolan films are bad. To the contrary, they're really damn good. But they're just not quintessential Batman.

 

[Mr. EcKo]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyoog562x4&feature=g-u-u[/ame]

 

[IrishJedi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLyoog562x4&feature=g-u-u

Finally an embed.

(Make sure you watch until after the credits )

 

[Khev]

On a completely different note did they ever announce which scene was playing when the Aurora gunman burst into the theater? I had initially heard that it was during an "onscreen shootout" so I assumed it was either the alley or stock exchange.